Are Judaism and
Christianity as Violent as Islam?
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2009, pp. 3-12
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2009, pp. 3-12
"There
is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam
imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of
the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal
holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist,"
Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently
serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and
intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and
not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as
well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an
first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the
Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity,
the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of
Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.
Medieval times:
The Crusades were violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's
standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity.
But the Crusades were a counterattack on Islam. Muslim invasions and
atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the decades before the
launch of the Crusades in 1096.
|
Therefore,
before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's
prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counseled to
consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as
recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal
cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith
against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and
Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be
hurling stones.
But
is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does
Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era,
compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?
Violence in Jewish and Christian
History
Along
with Armstrong, any number of prominent writers, historians, and theologians
have championed this "relativist" view. For instance, John Esposito,
director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian
Understanding at Georgetown University, wonders,
How
come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don't
ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have
engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the transcendent and the dark side.
… We have our own theology of hate. In mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we
tend to be intolerant; we adhere to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them.[2]
An
article by Pennsylvania State University humanities professor Philip Jenkins,
"Dark Passages," delineates this position most fully. It aspires to
show that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an:
[I]n
terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the
superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible
overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the
American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising
or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far
more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding
text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the
utmost condemnation as religions of savagery.[3]
Several
anecdotes from the Bible as well as from Judeo-Christian history illustrate
Jenkins' point, but two in particular—one supposedly representative of Judaism,
the other of Christianity—are regularly mentioned and therefore deserve closer
examination.
The
military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is
often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become emblematic
of biblical violence and intolerance. God told Moses:
But
of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an
inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall
utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and
Jebusite—just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do
according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and
you sin against the Lord your God.[4]
So
Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the
South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left
none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord, God of
Israel had commanded.[5]
As
for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses inciting
violence, those who espouse the view that Christianity is as violent as Islam
rely on historical events such as the Crusader wars waged by European
Christians between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The Crusades were in
fact violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's standards under the
banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. After breaching the walls
of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost
every inhabitant of the Holy City. According to the medieval chronicle, the Gesta
Danorum, "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to
their ankles."[6]
In
light of the above, as Armstrong, Esposito, Jenkins, and others argue, why
should Jews and Christians point to the Qur'an as evidence of Islam's violence
while ignoring their own scriptures and history?
Bible versus Qur'an
The
answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by
conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the
immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian
history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which
commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all
had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other."
Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished
it thus is the key question.
Old
Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the
Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is
therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the
historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is
just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a
specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time
did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In
short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.
This
is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old
Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic
violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at
all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur'an has a historical
context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following
Qur'anic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":
Then,
when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place
of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then
let them go their way.[7]
Fight
those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and
His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth,
being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of
hand and have been humbled.[8]
As
with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay
their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God first
issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had
grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But
unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the
sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the
"people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) and the "idolaters"
(i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact, set off the Islamic
conquests, which changed the face of the world forever. Based on Qur'an 9:5,
for instance, Islamic law mandates that idolaters and polytheists must either
convert to Islam or be killed; simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary
source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against conquered
Christians and Jews living under Islamic suzerainty.
In
fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and
oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs,
muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the
entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the
non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely
held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final
revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they
alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses,
such as "no compulsion is there in religion."[9]
Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his
"progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is
defensive warfare:
In
the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the
universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to
Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not
have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them,
save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish
their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses
and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their
only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] …
But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern
authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for
"jihad" by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms
is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done
until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be
made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be
eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad
as warfare, writes that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost
no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."[11]
And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
Qur'anic Language
When
the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament
counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that transcends
time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no
less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a
specific time and place. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the
Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles.
On the other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's,
historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an
rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are)
commanded to fight the people of the book—"until they pay the tribute out
of hand and have been humbled"[13]
and to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."[14]
The
two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and
"wherever" (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous
nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who
have yet to be "utterly humbled" (especially in the Americas, Europe,
and Israel) and "idolaters" to be slain "wherever" one
looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of
almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their
open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them [non-Muslims] until
there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. [Emphasis
added.]"[15]
Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith
collections, Muhammad proclaims:
I
have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that
there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that
they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to
Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected. [Emphasis
added.][16]
This
linguistic aspect is crucial to understanding scriptural exegeses regarding
violence. Again, it bears repeating that neither Jewish nor Christian
scriptures—the Old and New Testaments, respectively—employ such perpetual,
open-ended commandments. Despite all this, Jenkins laments that
Commands
to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate
and fear other races and religions … all are in the Bible, and occur with a far
greater frequency than in the Qur'an. At every stage, we can argue what the
passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance
for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their
inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less
than in the Muslim scripture.[17]
One
wonders what Jenkins has in mind by the word "canonized." If by
canonized he means that such verses are considered part of the canon of
Judeo-Christian scripture, he is absolutely correct; conversely, if by
canonized he means or is trying to connote that these verses have been
implemented in the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung, he is absolutely
wrong.
Yet
one need not rely on purely exegetical and philological arguments; both history
and current events give the lie to Jenkins's relativism. Whereas first-century
Christianity spread via the blood of martyrs, first-century Islam spread
through violent conquest and bloodshed. Indeed, from day one to the
present—whenever it could—Islam spread through conquest, as evinced by the fact
that the majority of what is now known as the Islamic world, or dar al-Islam,
was conquered by the sword of Islam. This is a historic fact, attested to by
the most authoritative Islamic historians. Even the Arabian peninsula, the
"home" of Islam, was subdued by great force and bloodshed, as evidenced
by the Ridda wars following Muhammad's death when tens of thousands of Arabs
were put to the sword by the first caliph Abu Bakr for abandoning Islam.
Muhammad's Role
Moreover,
concerning the current default position which purports to explain away Islamic
violence—that the latter is a product of Muslim frustration vis-Ã -vis political
or economic oppression—one must ask: What about all the oppressed Christians
and Jews, not to mention Hindus and Buddhists, of the world today? Where is
their religiously-garbed violence? The fact remains: Even though the Islamic
world has the lion's share of dramatic headlines—of violence, terrorism,
suicide-attacks, decapitations—it is certainly not the only region in
the world suffering under both internal and external pressures.
For
instance, even though practically all of sub-Saharan Africa is currently
riddled with political corruption, oppression and poverty, when it comes to
violence, terrorism, and sheer chaos, Somalia—which also happens to be the only
sub-Saharan country that is entirely Muslim—leads the pack. Moreover, those
most responsible for Somali violence and the enforcement of intolerant,
draconian, legal measures—the members of the jihadi group Al-Shabab (the
youth)—articulate and justify all their actions through an Islamist paradigm.
In
Sudan, too, a jihadi-genocide against the Christian and polytheistic peoples is
currently being waged by Khartoum's Islamist government and has left nearly a
million "infidels" and "apostates" dead. That the
Organization of Islamic Conference has come to the defense of Sudanese
president Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal
Court, is further telling of the Islamic body's approval of violence toward
both non-Muslims and those deemed not Muslim enough.
Latin
American and non-Muslim Asian countries also have their fair share of
oppressive, authoritarian regimes, poverty, and all the rest that the Muslim
world suffers. Yet, unlike the near daily headlines emanating from the Islamic
world, there are no records of practicing Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus
crashing explosives-laden vehicles into the buildings of oppressive (e.g.,
Cuban or Chinese communist) regimes, all the while waving their scriptures in
hand and screaming, "Jesus [or Buddha or Vishnu] is great!" Why?
There
is one final aspect that is often overlooked—either from ignorance or
disingenuousness—by those who insist that violence and intolerance is
equivalent across the board for all religions. Aside from the divine words of
the Qur'an, Muhammad's pattern of behavior—his sunna or
"example"—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam.
Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: "You have
had a good example in God's Messenger."[18]
And Muhammad's pattern of conduct toward non-Muslims is quite explicit.
Sarcastically
arguing against the concept of moderate Islam, for example, terrorist Osama bin
Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world's support per an Al-Jazeera poll,[19]
portrays the Prophet's sunna thusly:
"Moderation"
is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in
Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the
infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their
lives, and their women.[20]
In
fact, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad's sunna, pillaging and
plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in
concubinage is well founded.[21]
And the concept of sunna—which is what 90 percent of the billion-plus
Muslims, the Sunnis, are named after—essentially asserts that anything
performed or approved by Muhammad, humanity's most perfect example, is
applicable for Muslims today no less than yesterday. This, of course, does not
mean that Muslims in mass live only to plunder and rape.
But
it does mean that persons naturally inclined to such activities, and who also
happen to be Muslim, can—and do—quite easily justify their actions by referring
to the "Sunna of the Prophet"—the way Al-Qaeda, for example,
justified its attacks on 9/11 where innocents including women and children were
killed: Muhammad authorized his followers to use catapults during their siege
of the town of Ta'if in 630 C.E.—townspeople had refused to submit—though he
was aware that women and children were sheltered there. Also, when asked if it
was permissible to launch night raids or set fire to the fortifications of the
infidels if women and children were among them, the Prophet is said to have
responded, "They [women and children] are from among them
[infidels]."[22]
Jewish and Christian Ways
Though
law-centric and possibly legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the
Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though described in the Old
Testament, never went on to prescribe Jewish law. Neither Abraham's
"white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses' short-fuse, nor David's
adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or
Christians. They were understood as historical acts perpetrated by fallible men
who were more often than not punished by God for their less than ideal
behavior.
As
for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated or
fulfilled—depending on one's perspective—by Jesus. "Eye for an eye"
gave way to "turn the other cheek." Totally loving God and one's
neighbor became supreme law.[23]
Furthermore, Jesus' sunna—as in "What would Jesus do?"—is
characterized by passivity and altruism. The New Testament contains absolutely
no exhortations to violence.
Still,
there are those who attempt to portray Jesus as having a similarly militant
ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where the former—who "spoke to the
multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not"[24]—said,
"I come not to bring peace but a sword."[25]
But based on the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not
commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that strife
will exist between Christians and their environment—a prediction that was only
too true as early Christians, far from taking up the sword, passively perished
by the sword in martyrdom as too often they still do in the Muslim world. [26]
Others
point to the violence predicted in the Book of Revelation while, again, failing
to discern that the entire account is descriptive—not to mention clearly
symbolic—and thus hardly prescriptive for Christians. At any rate, how can one
conscionably compare this handful of New Testament verses that metaphorically
mention the word "sword" to the literally hundreds of Qur'anic
injunctions and statements by Muhammad that clearly command Muslims to take up
a very real sword against non-Muslims?
Undeterred,
Jenkins bemoans the fact that, in the New Testament, Jews "plan to stone
Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the
Devil."[27]
It still remains to be seen if being called "children of the Devil"
is more offensive than being referred to as the descendents of apes and
pigs—the Qur'an's appellation for Jews.[28]
Name calling aside, however, what matters here is that, whereas the New
Testament does not command Christians to treat Jews as "children of the
Devil," based on the Qur'an, primarily 9:29, Islamic law obligates Muslims
to subjugate Jews, indeed, all non-Muslims.
Does
this mean that no self-professed Christian can be anti-Semitic? Of course not.
But it does mean that Christian anti-Semites are living oxymorons—for the
simple reason that textually and theologically, Christianity, far from teaching
hatred or animosity, unambiguously stresses love and forgiveness. Whether or
not all Christians follow such mandates is hardly the point; just as whether or
not all Muslims uphold the obligation of jihad is hardly the point. The only
question is, what do the religions command?
John
Esposito is therefore right to assert that "Jews and Christians have
engaged in acts of violence." He is wrong, however, to add, "We
[Christians] have our own theology of hate." Nothing in the New Testament
teaches hate—certainly nothing to compare with Qur'anic injunctions such as:
"We [Muslims] disbelieve in you [non-Muslims], and between us and you
enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever until you believe in God alone."[29]
Reassessing the Crusades
And
it is from here that one can best appreciate the historic Crusades—events that
have been thoroughly distorted by Islam's many influential apologists. Karen
Armstrong, for instance, has practically made a career for herself by
misrepresenting the Crusades, writing, for example, that "the idea that
Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the
time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting
brutal holy wars against Islam."[30]
That a former nun rabidly condemns the Crusades vis-Ã -vis anything Islam has
done makes her critique all the more marketable. Yet statements such as this
ignore the fact that from the beginnings of Islam, more than 400 years before
the Crusades, Christians have noted that Islam was spread by the sword.[31]
Indeed, authoritative Muslim historians writing centuries before the Crusades,
such as Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari
(838-923), make it clear that Islam was spread by the sword.
The
fact remains: The Crusades were a counterattack on Islam—not an unprovoked
assault as Armstrong and other revisionist historians portray. Eminent
historian Bernard Lewis puts it well,
Even
the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a
delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But
unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of
threatened or lost Christian territory. It was, with few exceptions, limited to
the successful wars for the recovery of southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful
wars to recover the Holy Land and to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans.
The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious
obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the
Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. … The object of jihad is to bring the
whole world under Islamic law.[32]
Moreover,
Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the
decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096. The Fatimid caliph Abu 'Ali
Mansur Tariqu'l-Hakim (r. 996-1021) desecrated and destroyed a number of
important churches—such as the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem—and decreed even more oppressive than usual
decrees against Christians and Jews. Then, in 1071, the Seljuk Turks crushed
the Byzantines in the pivotal battle of Manzikert and, in effect, conquered a
major chunk of Byzantine Anatolia presaging the way for the eventual capture of
Constantinople centuries later.
It
was against this backdrop that Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) called for the
Crusades:
From
the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has
gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a
race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the
lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and
fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part
it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the
churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.[33]
Even
though Urban II's description is historically accurate, the fact remains:
However one interprets these wars—as offensive or defensive, just or unjust—it
is evident that they were not based on the example of Jesus, who exhorted his
followers to "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to
those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute
you."[34]
Indeed, it took centuries of theological debate, from Augustine to Aquinas, to
rationalize defensive war—articulated as "just war." Thus, it would
seem that if anyone, it is the Crusaders—not the jihadists—who have been less
than faithful to their scriptures (from a literal standpoint); or put
conversely, it is the jihadists—not the Crusaders—who have faithfully fulfilled
their scriptures (also from a literal stand point). Moreover, like the violent
accounts of the Old Testament, the Crusades are historic in nature and not
manifestations of any deeper scriptural truths.
In
fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades
ironically better help explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once
and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of
these so-called Christian Crusades, despite them—man is often predisposed to
violence. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are
commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and
persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the
same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill,
and plunder nonbelievers?
Raymond
Ibrahim
is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author of The Al Qaeda
Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007).
[1] Andrea Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions,"
interview with Karen Armstrong, Share International, Sept. 2007, pp. 19-22.
[2] C-SPAN2, June 5, 2004.
[3] Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," The Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2009.
[4] Deut. 20:16-18.
[5] Josh. 10:40.
[6] "The Fall of Jerusalem," Gesta Danorum, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[7] Qur. 9:5. All translations of Qur'anic verses are drawn from A.J. Arberry, ed. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation (New York: Touchstone, 1996).
[8] Qur. 9:29.
[9] Qur. 2:256.
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).
[13] Qur. 9:29.
[14] Qur. 9:5.
[15] Qur. 8:39.
[16] Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, C9B1N31; Muhammad Ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Lahore: Kazi, 1979), B2N24.
[17] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[18] Qur. 33:21.
[19] "Al-Jazeera-Poll: 49% of Muslims Support Osama bin Laden," Sept. 7-10, 2006, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[20] 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali, Hilf al Irhab (Cairo: Markaz al-Mahrusa li 'n-Nashr wa 'l-Khidamat as-Sahafiya wa 'l-Ma'lumat, 2004).
[21] For example, Qur. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50.
[22] Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.
[23] Matt. 22:38-40.
[24] Matt. 13:34.
[25] Matt. 10:34.
[26] See, for instance, "Christian Persecution Info," Christian Persecution Magazine, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[27] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[28] Qur. 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166.
[29] Qur. 60:4.
[30] Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," pp. 19-22; For a critique of Karen Armstrong's work, see "Karen Armstrong," in Andrew Holt, ed. Crusades-Encyclopedia, Apr. 2005, accessed Apr. 6, 2009.
[31] See, for example, the writings of Sophrinius, Jerusalem's patriarch during the Muslim conquest of the Holy City, just years after the death of Muhammad, or the chronicles of Theophane the Confessor.
[32] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1995), p. 233-4.
[33] "Speech of Urban—Robert of Rheims," in Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), p. 27.
[34] Matt. 5:44.
[2] C-SPAN2, June 5, 2004.
[3] Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," The Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2009.
[4] Deut. 20:16-18.
[5] Josh. 10:40.
[6] "The Fall of Jerusalem," Gesta Danorum, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[7] Qur. 9:5. All translations of Qur'anic verses are drawn from A.J. Arberry, ed. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation (New York: Touchstone, 1996).
[8] Qur. 9:29.
[9] Qur. 2:256.
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).
[13] Qur. 9:29.
[14] Qur. 9:5.
[15] Qur. 8:39.
[16] Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, C9B1N31; Muhammad Ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Lahore: Kazi, 1979), B2N24.
[17] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[18] Qur. 33:21.
[19] "Al-Jazeera-Poll: 49% of Muslims Support Osama bin Laden," Sept. 7-10, 2006, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[20] 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali, Hilf al Irhab (Cairo: Markaz al-Mahrusa li 'n-Nashr wa 'l-Khidamat as-Sahafiya wa 'l-Ma'lumat, 2004).
[21] For example, Qur. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50.
[22] Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.
[23] Matt. 22:38-40.
[24] Matt. 13:34.
[25] Matt. 10:34.
[26] See, for instance, "Christian Persecution Info," Christian Persecution Magazine, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[27] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[28] Qur. 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166.
[29] Qur. 60:4.
[30] Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," pp. 19-22; For a critique of Karen Armstrong's work, see "Karen Armstrong," in Andrew Holt, ed. Crusades-Encyclopedia, Apr. 2005, accessed Apr. 6, 2009.
[31] See, for example, the writings of Sophrinius, Jerusalem's patriarch during the Muslim conquest of the Holy City, just years after the death of Muhammad, or the chronicles of Theophane the Confessor.
[32] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1995), p. 233-4.
[33] "Speech of Urban—Robert of Rheims," in Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), p. 27.
[34] Matt. 5:44.
Authorization to post or repost: "This text may be
reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with
complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of
publication, and original URL." http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? by Raymond Ibrahim Middle East Quarterly Summer 2009, pp. 3-12
No comments:
Post a Comment