War in the name of God

[Mus Zibii]

Is it ever justified? During the Cold War, much was made of Soviet Atheism. When the US funded Al-Qaeda, America was reassured in its partnership by the zealous vows of the 'Freedom Fighters' to 'slit the throats of the infidel'. Now, group upon group of Islamic terrorists are fulfilling that promise, not upon a common enemy but with American civilians and soldiers. The union of holy war is always strained. When the common enemy of Israel and America is not recognized, Islamic warlords fight among themselves, calling the other godless. Protestants and Catholics can be bound in anti-semitism, but otherwise they consider the other heretical. Early into Christianity, the idea of the 'Avenging Saviour' became tradition if not doctrine. Conceptions of just war and the journey of a soul that dies on the battlefield were studied more than any other aspect of faith. Today Islamic clerics are petitioned and praised for finding loopholes to reason suicide-bombing and the mutilation of corpses. The various churchs during WW2 sanctioned Hitler's war against Zionism in exchange for the inclusion of unfavored Christian sects in his final solution. In the end, the Waffen SS marched through France happily destroying crucifixes and using churches as slaughterhouses. Buddhism was the faith of the samurai, Sikhs and Hindus have fought in equally prejudiced conflicts. Although I don't have anything from the top of my head I'm sure Jews are just as guilty. There have certainly been instances of prejudice over the course of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Judaism partially originated in the idea that God sanctioned the systematic extermination of the Canaanites.

Every religion at some point has built its doctrine on the hate of the unbeliever. Is this good, ever acceptable? Is it necessary or adverse to God?

[I, Brian]

To be honest, I usually take the politics of war as precisely that. It's not religious doctrines that are pushing them. After all, in Christianity, Jesus implicitly tells people not to strike their enemies, but love them; Islam makes it pretty plain that while you can strike back at an enemy, you only do so in self-defence.

But religion, as a way of social bonding, therefore presents a tool for social manipulation - because there is a shared ideology among a population. And whilst the doctrines may make an implicit call for resistance against such human drives as war, revenge, and violence, we are ultimately a violent and political ape. Thus religious ideals are easily enough reduced to political ones.

Oh, I know that organisations such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the Baha'i movement are pretty implicit on avoiding conflict - but the key difference with such organisations is that they have never been put in a position of governing a major population, where issues such as national defence and politics has been in a position to properly corrupt such ideals.

Ultimately, religion serves as a moral guide for our actions. While the scriptures may provide moral instruction, the basic heart of much religion is that man needs Divine help to ascend to a more moral and enlightened way of living. All too often, we can see how our biological nature as a large aggressive ape reflects this.

2c.


[EDIT: removed awful typos!]

[Excelsis Deo]

War in the name of God is nothing new as you pointed out. I think it is good to understand the founder of a religion instead of looking at the actions of its adherents. For example in Christianity Jesus is the founder of course. He advocated non-violence and forgave those who persecuted and killed him. He taught to love your enemy. Muhammed, on who Islam is founded, used violence as a way to spread his belief system and to subdue others of different faiths like the Jews. He taught that violence was necessary when people did not submit to his belief system. I am aware of 20 places in the Qur'an where this is taught. Thus, for the Christian is is inconsistent with their founder and his beliefs to use violence to advance their faith. For the Muslim it is not inconsistent.

[I, Brian]

Islam was hardly spread violently - the Byzantines and Persians had effectively fought each other into the ground (that's Christians fighting Pagans, for those who want the technical details). Islam was able to spread quickly through the provinces of the retreating empires of these two major powers, without having to set up any particular major military campaigns. The Sassinid Empire pretty much imploded and Islam took it's place.

[Mus Zibii]

I hate to defend one religion over the other, especially considering the horrors of the Christian empires, but by whatever twist of fate there are fewer calls to arms in the Christian holy writ than in Islam. I doubt it was the nature of the adherents as much as the opressive context they were writing in. As soon as Christianity achieved substantial means they began the conversions by sword and fire. And the mythos of Islam being the faith of the sword, its a similiar phenomenon with Judaism, which claimed vast military victories with the favor of god when in fact these battles were mostly if not wholly legends. Moreover, the traditions of Mohomet like the gospels are poor historical records. I'm not even going to start on the contradictions in Islam, between its violence and the instances where Mohomet in select Hadith is almost like a modern Buddhist with his visible reverence for all life.

But still, among all of the faiths, there's the call to convert by force. And there seems to be no compulsion among any of them to reconcile or apologize.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Jesus

[Abogado del Diablo]

ANY war can be justified by fundamentalists in ANY tradition. Watch as American TV preacher Pat Robertson explains that genocide is an act of God's mercy:

From the "700 Club" on May 6, 1985:


Audience Participant: "I've been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?"

Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God.

God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love -- and that was a loving thing -- took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.

That's Old Testament God you say? Follow along. Genocide is an act of mercy because it saves millions of unbaptized and unconsecrated souls the fate of eternal damnation. Jesus teaches that the greatest of all commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. If you had an "unrepentant" heart, rejected the truth and placed generations of your offspring and followers at risk of eternal damnation wouldn't you want someone to kill you to avoid leading so many astray? Thus, Jesus advocates a loving Genocide.

Before you laugh, take a look at the propaganda used to justify the Albigensian Crusade.

Abogado del Diablo

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i think that i can make a compelling argument that the use of Buddhism in the Japanese Samurai was a corruption of the texts by the Imperial Government, though perhaps Vapour could shed more light on this.

nevertheless, you will not find a single Sutta/Sutra reference to incite violence or to convert the unbeliever by any type of force. in fact, we are often instructed not to do anything of the sort unless we are approached and asked about the teachings specifically.

leaving that aside, in the case of the Samurai, we must bear in mind the Bushido, which was really the governing aspect of their code of conduct. the Buddhist bit was, in many ways the same as the Roman adoption of Christianity, a manner of exerting a unifiying influence throughout the empire and wasn't really all that concerned with Buddhadharma.

having said that...

there are, of course, individuals of all manner of religious affiliation that will use force, depending on the circumstance. for instance, Buddhist Thailand in dealing with the Islamic militants burning schools and police offices down in the south.

[Quesocoatl]

What concept of "peace" would surface....without the prescence of "war"?
Does an offensive strategy even exist without ...a defensive premise upon which to build it?

[kiwimac]

For Quakers and Mennonites (and others besides) the call of Christ is a call of peace.

Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the whole world, that the spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of the world.

And as for the kingdoms of this world, we cannot covet them, much less can we fight for them, but we do earnestly desire and wait, that by the word of God's power and its effectual operation in the hearts of men the kingdoms of this world may become the kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ, that he may rule and reign in men by his spirit and truth, that thereby all people, out of all different judgments and professions might be brought into love and unity with God and one another, and that they might all come to witness the prophet's words, who said, "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more". (Is 2:4, Mic 4:3)

Quaker declaration to Charles II, 1661

And from my own Yearly Meeting

We totally oppose all wars, all preparation for war, all use of weapons and coercion by force, and all military alliances: no end could ever justify such means. We equally and actively oppose all that leads to violence among people and nations, and violence to other species and to our planet. This has been our testimony to the whole world for over three centuries.

We are not naive or ignorant about the complexity of our modern world and the impact of sophisticated technologies-but we see no reason whatsoever to change or weaken our vision of the peace that everyone needs in order to survive and flourish on a healthy, abundant earth.

The primary reason for this stand is our conviction that there is that of God in every one which makes each person too precious to damage or destroy. While someone lives, there is always the hope of reaching that of God within them: such hope motivates our search to find nonviolent resolution of conflict ....

There is no guarantee that our resistance will be any more successful or any less risky than military tactics. At least our means will be suited to our end. If we seemed to fail finally, we would still rather suffer and die than inflict evil in order to save ourselves and what we hold dear. If we succeed, there is no loser or winner, for the problem that led to conflict will have been resolved in a spirit of justice and tolerance. Such a resolution is the only guarantee that there will be no further outbreak of war when each side has regained strength ....

The places to begin acquiring the skills and maturity and generosity to avoid or to resolve conflicts are in our own homes, our personal relationships, our schools, our workplaces, and wherever decisions are made. We must relinquish the desire to own other people, to have power over them, and to force our views on to them. We must own up to our own negative side and not look for scapegoats to blame, punish, or exclude. We must resist the urge towards waste and the accumulation of possessions.

Conflicts are inevitable and must not be repressed or ignored but worked through painfully and carefully. We must develop the skills of being sensitive to oppression and grievances, sharing power in decision making, creating consensus, and making reparation.

In speaking out, we acknowledge that we ourselves are as limited and as erring as anyone else. When put to the test, we each may fall short. We do not have a blueprint for peace .... In any particular situation, a variety of personal decisions could be made with integrity. We may disagree with the views and actions of the politician or the soldier who opts for a military solution, but we still respect and cherish that person.

What we call for in this statement is a commitment to make the building of peace a priority and to make opposition to war absolute. What we advocate is not uniquely Quaker but human and, we believe, the will of God. Our stand does not belong to Friends alone-it is yours by birthright ....

Let us reject the clamour of fear and listen to the whisperings of hope.


Aotearoa/New Zealand Yearly Meeting, 1987

Kiwimac

[Mus Zibii]

I was going to say something about Quakers and how they defined the American legal system (for the better), but then I didn't... for some reason.

And I'd like to see Pat Robertson explain why God commanded the good ole Israelites to kill the livestock and children and take the virgin girls and women to 'delight in'.

[Excelsis Deo]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Islam was hardly spread violently - the Byzantines and Persians had effectively fought each other into the ground (that's Christians fighting Pagans, for those who want the technical details). Islam was able to spread quickly through the provinces of the retreating empires of these two major powers, without having to set up any particular major military campaigns. The Sassinid Empire pretty much imploded and Islam took it's place.

The comparison I was making is about the LEADERS or FOUNDERS of their particular belief system. Muhammed without a doubt spread his belief system through violence. This is abundantly evident in the Qu'ran and the biography of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq (Muslim historian) and the Hadith collection of Bukhari (most authoritative book in Sunni Islam second only to the Qur'an). In these writings of Muslim origin we find that Muhammed sanctioned assasinations and violence in the name of Allah and specifically targeted the Jewish minority.

PBS "Frontline" aired a documentry about Muhammed's religious teachings in present day Saudi Arabia. About 35% of the schools there have compulsory religious education. In the middle school text book there is a lesson entitled,"The Victory of Muslims over the Jews." This lesson refers to the future destruction of all Jews by the Muslims as recorded in the Hadith. The lesson is summarized in the textbook by several prepositional statements:
It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight
til the end of the world.

This Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the
Jews.

Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers.

The link to this show is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...textbooks.html

[kiwimac]

And yet the Qur'an has the following to say about Christians:

[5.82] You will find that the most people in enmity to the believers are the Jews and idolaters, and that the nearest in affection to the believers are those who say: 'We are Nazarenes.' That is because amongst them there are priests and monks; and because they are not proud.

And the following

[2.62] Those who believe, Jews, Nazarenes and Sabaeans whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear nor are they saddened.

The Haditha are like commentaries, some are supposedly from the lips of Mohammud, others from those who followed him. It is important to differentiate between the hadith and the Qur'an.

Kiwimac

[I, Brian]

The issue I was more thinking of with regards to the expansion of Islam, is that some make out that Mohammed stood at the fore of ravenous armies, who fought wildly against stalwart Christians to spread Islam. My possibly erroneous understanding is that Islam effectively walked into territory already abandoned by the Byzantines, and that the Sassasinids had effectively collasped. So Islam stepped in relatively peacefully, and took over administrative control of these regions, then expanded out further as a political entity - which is where the real violence kicks in - as with any political group (cf campaigns of the Papacy and general mass conversion to Christianity by the sword). My view mainly to come via reading on Bzyantium, though, and they tend to be less diametrically opposed to Arabs and their ideologies than the Roman west.

As for the "Muslims vs Jews" issue - my understanding of this is that the general anti-Semitic hatred that is festering in Islam, is a direct consequence of the occupation of the Palestinian terroritories by the Nation State of Israel. I know there is some rather nasty propaganda in the West Bank, too - but overall, a recent development. Historically, Jews did rather well as "people of the book", and Judaism in Bagdad particularly flourished under Muslim rule in the mediaeval period, and was favourably written of by Muslim writers of the time.

[Excelsis Deo]

Check out the Muslim sources I cited above and see how "tolerant" Muhammed was. Indeed Christians (I use this term loosely when refering to the Medevil Catholic Church) have done some horrible things but what does that have to do with Jesus Christ? Again,it is totally inconsistent for Christians to use violence to advance their faith. I think the evidence of Muslim sources shows that the opposite is true for Islam.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Excelsis Deo

Again,it is totally inconsistent for Christians to use violence to advance their faith. I think the evidence of Muslim sources shows that the opposite is true for Islam.

Is it, though? I'm certainly not going to jump to the defense of Islam here. I've seen too many beheadings done recently to the chant of Praise Allah that are far too successfully (Therefore, when ye meet the infidel, smite at their necks 47/4) defended by Mullahs. But isn't there some wiggle room, a lot of wiggle room, in fact, for violent Christianity? If not in the canon NT then in the doctrines of the church fathers?

Like I said before, the concept of the avenging Saviour has been around virtually since the beginning. In fact, I'm not sure, but didn't the execution style of quartering originate in Christianity?