Many Christians approach Muslim people with memories of 9/11 resonating in their minds. They see a people bent on the total destruction of other nations and religions, especially Judaism and Christianity. They see hatemongering, warmongering elitists who are bent on jihad. These reactionary Christians even take the time to justify such perceptions with quotes from the Q'uran, citing various extremist views as the normative belief system which is contrary to any hopes of peace or acceptance. As a result, all those of Islamic belief are cast with a broad brush as terrorists who loathe freedom or freedom in Christ.
And yet, I can’t help but see a double standard here. I don’t appreciate being stereotyped and equated with extreme conservative Christianity. I surely don’t agree with abortion clinic bombers, with those who believe that salvation is reserved only for those who have done certain things, with those who handle snakes in worship services, or with televangelists who hawk their wares for profit. And I am offended that people would consider Christianity to consist of such things.
I find it unfair that naysayers of Christianity rip texts from my Holy Book in an effort to justify their problems with my belief system. But such texts exist nonetheless. The Bible, at times, condones ethnic cleansing as much as the Quran. The Bible, at times, condones mistreatment of women and those of differing faiths. The Bible, at times, seems more concerned with rules and regulations than relating with people.
So why is it a personal affront when we are labeled and stereotyped with Christians whom we disagree but okay to do the same with all Muslim believers? Sure their holy book condones violent actions – so does ours. Sure their holy book makes legalistic rule keeping a part of their belief system – so does ours.
Maybe this sort of action stems from our belief that we have the corner market on truth and Islam stands as a false religion. Though there may be some validity to such a statement, it seems that the attacks do not come in the name of false religion but in the name of opening our eyes to the evil ways of those who “threaten freedom.” It is time to separate those who believe in a peaceful religion based on the 5 Pillars brought by Mohammed from those who use the religion to promote extremist views.
Am I wrong here? Is my concern for peace and acceptance clouding my ability to see the dangers of Islam?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree. I don't know enough about the Q'uran or Islam to know what is a fair representation of the text as a whole. But I know people rip biblical texts out of context all the time to harm our faith. And I know that there are many "Christians" who misrepresent the faith. I would assume that it is the same for Muslims.
I think many assume that if a person just studied our Bible enough that they would understand Christianity. That may be true. But is that true of other religions? Do they put that kind of stock in their holy writings? I don't know.
I doubt you could understand the difference between a Catholic and a Quaker by reading the Bible, or the difference between a United Methodist and a Pentecostal from reading the Bible. Waht kind of subsects does Islam have?
Is this sort of proof-texting like saying that you understand the United States, because you have read the Constitution?
"...with quotes from the Q'uran, citing various extremist views as the normative belief system which is contrary to any hopes of peace or acceptance."
The passages you mention from the Bible are argued by Christians though to not be normative. However, the followers of the Q'uran agree don't make the argument that their scripture referencing violence is not how their devotees should behave.
And it sounds like the others that have answered here are saying, "I don't know enough about it so I'll assume the best." Why would you assume the best?
Post a Comment