I can’t ignore Minnesota Congressman Ellison who urged Americans to put the Boston Marathon bombing in a fuller context of his faith and regard the attack not as religious but as political.
The congressman should know that as a theocratic faith Islam is probably the most political religion on the planet. There are dozens of nations that call themselves Islamic States where civil, political and human rights are set by the practice of one religion. He has got to know that the Organization of Islamic Councils (A U.N.-type international group) meets not to discuss religion but to plan political steps to expand the rule of Islam in a growing world Caliphate/ theocracy.
Being political is not a crime. The galling evasion used by the congressman is that it suggests the American public is somehow at fault when it sees violent acts as violent and terror groups as terroristic.
It is not what you or I think that makes something violent. The believers who blow things up say that loudly and clearly. Trying to persuade us there’s some difference between the detonation of a politically versus dogma motivated bomb is silly. It is not a fault to find connection where connection exists. It’s estimated nine out of 10 acts of religious terror come from one group with members who do not shout “John the Baptist” prior to explosion.
The congressman calls for context and states that the Prophet said, (imprecise quote) “Taking one life is as killing an entire world. Saving one life is as saving the entire world.”
Muhammad did say it. Unfortunately the congressman fails to give the context of the reported event. In the paraphrase Muhammad was repeating a portion of Hebrew scripture in a political address to Jews as his military expansion was bringing others under control. His words told Jews the standard they were held to when punishing ‘mischief ’ on territory in their control. A principal mischief was disagreeing with the Prophet. Other mischiefs were following other faiths and female disobedience.
To deal with mischief Muhammad granted his followers rights to banish, crucify, cut off limbs, imprison and execute. The standard for Muslims was different than that for Jews.
Our understanding of context is further complicated by the Islamic tradition of weighing the Prophet’s statements according to time. In the case of two statements from the prophet being in seeming contradiction the later one overrules the earlier.
Now, if you and I find the messages conflicting I’d suppose this same applies to believers left to pick between the Lesser and Greater Jihad in violent or non-violent ways.
Given the context of recorded words and current practice it doesn’t appear the conflict between opposed systems will cease because we think it might or wish it to. This is not going away.
Harry Drabik
Hovland
Leave a Reply