is there a difference between radical & moderate islam?
I don’t normally comment on political topics on this blog, but I have long held that fundamentalist Islam is actually the normative form of it and not the other way around. The moderates claim that radical Islam is the aberration, what do you think? Check this out…
I am not merely trying to be belligerent here, I believe there is a direct link between the founder and the religion or movement the comes from him/her. Christianity is determines by the life, teachings, witness of Jesus of Nazareth. Islam is based on the life, and witness , of Mohamed. This relates to the issue in the last blog of the embodiment of the founder’s teachings.
Comments
25 Responses to “is there a difference between radical & moderate islam?”
Leave a Reply
The Books
COMING SOON!
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
The Problem of institutions (Part I)
- Eleanor Burne-Jones said: Surely we can't create...
- Alan Hirsch said: They come and go all too...
- Andrew said: Just noticed a wording...
- Andrew said: Didn't notice the word ...
- Alan Hirsch said: By the way, if it is not...
- Andrew said: A postscript to my last...
- Andrew said: I don’t know whether you...
- alan hirsch said: Agent B sounds very...
- Agent B said: No fair. You can write...
- Michael McAleer said: I think there are two...
Alan,
Interestingly, I just spoke on the difference between Islam and Christianity. With the anniversary of 9/11, it seemed like a timely topic.
There are undoubtedly some Muslims who make the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and they themselves live such lives. However, two things give justification to the view that Islam is inherently violent.
First, the sheer number of passages in the Quran that give justification for violence points towards violence being inherent to this faith. Note the following passages:
2:190–193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God … ”
“ … fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) … ”
“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day . . . nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Now certainly there are passages in the Bible that seem to promote violence, such as the annhilation of men, women and children as the Israelites entered Canaan. Or Psalm 137
, which speaks of bashing one’s enemies’ infants against the rocks. We have to admit that, taken out of context, the Bible can be made to promote violence as well.
However, there are two things to note about these biblical passages. While hard to understand and incredibly challenging to our faith, the wiping out of the Canaanites, including women and children, was a command that was limited to a certain time and place. It was incredibly rare. And the imprecatory Psalms are meant to express emotion and are a call for God to take action against injustice, not a license for individual retribution.
The ultimate way to determine the essence of a religion, however, is to go to its founder, as you say.
Note the following quotes about Muhammad from his biography, The Life of Muhammad:
Muhammad said, “Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?” [a poet who had written a poem against Muhammad] One of his followers volunteered and said, “I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.” And the prophet responded by saying, “Do so if you can.”
Muhammad said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power . . . . ”The older brother said, “By God, a religion that can bring you to this is marvelous!” and he became a Muslim.
The apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has,” so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head.”
It is hard to claim a non-violent faith, when one’s founder committed violence. In contrast, Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mt. 5:38-39).
Furthermore, when Peter drew a sword to cut off the ear of one of the soldiers who came to capture Jesus, Jesus said to him: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Mt. 26:52).
Alan, your emphasis upon looking at the founder of one’s faith is very timely and helpful in distinguishing Christianity from other faiths. No other “religion” has a Savior, God incarnate, who lays down his life for his people. It is true that horrible things have been done by Christians and in the name of Christ. We need to repent of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquistion, of prejudice and racism. We cannot simply point to religious terrorists and say, see that is what they believe, any more than we would want people to look at the Crusades and say that this is what Christians believe.
But Jesus solves the debate. He was non-violent, and that is why true Christianity is a non-violent faith.
Alan and James,
One of my roles in the kingdom is to mobilize and send Jesus followers to live among Muslims. We strive to lead Muslims down the straight path of following Jesus into the kingdom of God. This work is very rewarding and God is on the move in the Islamic world; no matter whether Muslims are peaceful or not.
When leaders take such a polemic stance against Islam, and inherently those who follow Islam, I fear it does more harm than good. What is the point of such? How does it advance the kingdom?
Muslims need Jesus. We, as followers of Jesus, have been commanded to give them Jesus, even if it costs us our life. How do we do this and encourage those we lead to do this if we are instead instilling fear, which often results in unspoken hatred?
For Jesus followers, it must not be a case of us against them. That mentality is what causes war and violence. Instead, we must remember that Muslims are being held captive by an enemy that will do anything to keep it that way, including convincing followers of Jesus that Muslims are the true enemy.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
James G, my interestis as stated. I am seriosuly interested in how a founder impacts a movement,not ininciting more violence. Iforone can’t seehow anyonewho seriously claims Jesus as Lord can enegender violence. That’s the point. I really can’t see how moderate Islam exists…as far as I can judge, it is by nature immoderate.
Alan,
I understand your point, I just don’t see why it needs to be made or how it fits in a missional discussion.
Jesus was peaceful and non-violent, therefore those who follow him should be as well. History shows that Muhammad was peaceful until he gained power, then he became more violent. So, there could be a case made that Islam is violent.
I have spent time in more than 20 different Islamic cultures. The vast majority of Muslims I have met and talked with over the years are simply trying to figure out how to feed their family.
Yes, there are violent elements in Islam. No question. Of course, there are in Christianity as well.
So I get back to my question. Why make the point? What is the motive behind the point and how does it fit within a missional discussion?
James,
I rarely make direct comparisons, and usually try to find positive spiritual aspects of a person’s faith system and establish common ground, as Paul did in Acts 17
.
There is always a tension in mission between relevance and finding positive spiritual elements in a culture or faith system, and calling people out of idolatry. The extreme for the former is syncretism, and the extreme in the latter is non-engagement with the culture. I have to admit, I normally lean far towards the direction of cultural relevance, not wanting to drive anyone away.
I do not make a very good prophet. It is probably my lowest gift in APEST, and I never enjoy it. But the prophetic role of calling people out of idolatry is a legitimate one and part of the missionary endeavor.
Bryan Stone talks about the need to call confront the worldview of the unbeliever in order to make a true conversion possible. For instance, he says this about the church’s failure to confront the modern worldview in its attempt to be relevant:
“The presumption that one can remove the ‘culture barrier’ between the church and secular people without challenging the intrinsically individualist, consumerist, and ultimately violent presuppositions of secular culture represents a blindness to the subversive, cultural, and corporately embodied dimensions of Christian faith itself.”
In other words, at some point, worldviews–and other faith systems–must be confronted head on. I have to admit that at times I have extended an offer of salvation that emphasized the benefits of coming to Christ without truly confronting an individualistic, me-first mindset. This is the god of our culture. A similar confrontation at some point is necessary for other cultures.
James, I commend your calling of Christians to live with Muslims. We must live in close proximity, demonstrate love and kindness, and bring out the best in all people.
The missional relevance of this discussion is not to promote–hostility–God forbid! The missional relevance is that missionaries must be informed of the belief systems of the people that they are trying to reach. Obviously, you are so informed. However, in my experience, most Christians (and other non-Muslims) have virtually no knowledge of the teachings of the Quran or of the life of Muhammed. There are Christians who even fall into the belief that there is really no difference between the two faiths. And missionaries must also know what worldviews of the people whom they are trying to reach must be confronted.
The founder is incredibly important, and I would think that at some point a direct comparison between Jesus and Muhammed would have to be made. The only motive in any of this is to help understand a people so that they can lovingly be called to a different lordship–the lordship of Christ.
According to a recent Georgetown study, there isn’t much difference between “moderate” and “fundamentalist” Islam. I think this is accurate. However, like with all other religions, even elaborate idiologies, organized groups within choose to focus on certain aspects or interpretations and blow them out of proportion where they become the group’s raison detre and in the end result define Islam.
Open hostility towards Islam and the inclination by some to lump all Muslims together helps this process and gives it credibility.
Make no mistake, these groups will continue to hide behind, and exploit “moderate” Islam and Muslims towards surviving and achieving their goals, but the solution starts with accepting Islam as a major world religion that has coexisted reasonably with Christianity, Judaism and other religions in the past and as a partner in the new global economic and political system. At the same time, isolating trouble making groups.
Here is an example that supports this argument: during this current US administration, Iran was demonized and considered to be a member of the axis of evil. Recently, the generalization was withdrawn and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was outlawed. No doubt, it was discovered, and within a few years, that the initial approach has weakened “moderate” Iran and gave credibility and additional strength to “fundamentalist” Iran!
Khaled, you make good points. But you refer to a phenomenon that can be explained on political and sociological terms. My concern is that the religious force is being awakened by the fundies. I don’t necessarily believe that a confrontation is the solution, but I am not sure that doing nothing is the answer either.
And James G, why I think it belongs here, is that any missional approach must deal with the religio-political realities of our world as it is. How can we avoid it? I find myself in agreement with James Nored here–it is an issue of different visions of reality and the future. This is a missional issue.
Alan,
Yes, “different visions of reality and the future” is a missional issue. I agree. Thanks.
I think if we were sitting across from each other over a cup of coffee this conversation would have been much different. I would have picked up on your body language and indirect signals and would have known that you were not being confrontational or taking an “us against them” stance. But we weren’t and I have to be honest in saying that what immediately rushed over me as I read this post was a sense that it was confrontational in nature.
So, forgive me for the wrong assumption. My desire, as is yours, is to see the kingdom of God come among every nation, all tribes and peoples and languages. The more we walk in love and grace, the quicker this happens, at least that has been my experience. But, when our strategy in pursuing the kingdom has a “we are right and your are wrong” vision behind it, I think this slows things down.
So, let’s just continue to lift up King Jesus and let the stuff that should fall away fall away because it will not be able to stand the light.
Until ALL Have Heard,
JG
Yeah and amen!
Hey Alan! This is Justin from Tacoma (and Zoe). I linked your blog here to mine and started pulling the feed. Good stuff!
One of the things I appreciate about this type of conversation about Islam, and more specifically Muhammed, is the contrast you all are pointing out between following a military leader and someone who literally loved His enemies to the point of death.
Sometimes I get these visions of an allegorical battle of Megeddo with three converging groups meeting in the center. Fundamental Islamist nations, some kind of futuristic techno-atheists, and people following Jesus. I imagine the first two ready to fight until they have overcome with force, eradicating all opposition. I see the latter ready to lay down their lives, fueled with divine love and energy, loving and giving until all the hate that fuels the first two is absorbed leaving only the truth of Jesus.
It’s not that I think everything is that simplistic, but it’s extremely encouraging to me when I envision worldviews like fundamental islam’s and maybe that of folks fighting against “dangerous memes” in faith and their ultimate futility to get at the heart of this world’s problems. And to then imagine the beauty of Christ’s claims, in word and deed, and what they have to say about reality and the state of the world is astonishing in contrast. Just to be clear, that’s not to say, “ha! we got it figured out and they don’t!” But rather to embrace our calling to be the first to love in that truth we see.
I’m pretty sure this is resonating with what has already been said. Am I the only one that finds this stuff really hard in practice?
Justin
“Am I the only one that finds this stuff really hard in practice?”
No. How many Christians do you know?
How many Christians do you know who so love their enemies they would lay down their lives? Who would pray for those who persecute them? Who would turn the other cheek?
Jesus way is hard… it’s the narrow gate.
James you are probably the most “missional” in all this discussion in that it is where you are living out your faith - rock on man. Everyone or people group I ever feared - I have wound up being close to many of those individuals. It’s easy to be affected by Western media and “those that would harm us” and lump everyone into one category. The other side of the world is not immune from this. In the Middle-East they see us as all Christian->Evangelical->Pat Robertson->John Hagee. Those who we feel are furthest from the Kingdom and most lost are those we must engage the most and at the deepest level. That’s the whole point of the discussion of Jesus when asking, “Who did he love the most?” The one he forgave the most.
I have read the Koran - and the Old Testament - they’re both pretty violent. The New Testament is far less, as a matter of fact the violence is willfully accepted by Christ as it was placed upon him - but as sons of Abraham I think sometimes our “default” response is back to the sword. There is a definite difference in King Abdullah of Jordan and in the President of Iran - however, keep in mind there is a strong movement among the youth of Iran towards moderation. This stuff is so complex there is no way you can paint it all with one stroke. It’s so complex we want to paint it with one stroke so it can make sense.
It could be, that how Christians and Muslims learn to relate to one another may be the most global missional response believers have staring them in the face today.
Here’s all I know for sure - we should love them all - be willing to risk all to share love - even if the system is bad the people are still loved by God and reachable. Highly recommend the book Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road by Paul-Gordon Chandler.
I think Alan - no doubt about it, the founder of any “religion” or “movement” determines the future of it - as Christians we know what our “founder” went through for the sake of others and the kingdom that is eternal that we believe in.
Thanks for bringing this up Alan - now this, my brother - is a very worthwile discussion from theory, to being honest about how we feel, to hopefully leading to action. BTW, if all the prognosticators of Islam being non-reformable are right and it is violent at it’s core - what should the response of a follower of Jesus be? The same as if it were “perfect” to it’s core - to LOVE them with the LOVE of JESUS through incarnational witness!
“No. How many Christians do you know?
How many Christians do you know who so love their enemies they would lay down their lives? Who would pray for those who persecute them? Who would turn the other cheek?
Jesus way is hard… it’s the narrow gate.”
I know… it’s sad. And yet they, we, are still called “Christians.” But who has time to figure out and implement the process of getting there? It seems like we’d need a lot of help in that and on a daily basis, too. Who has time to even go through the necessary work of being able to exist in daily Christ-centered community whist still being able to exist missionally in culture?
Not to preach to the choir. I’m sincerely asking. I can’t imagine Jesus would call us to something that isn’t possible through His Spirit and His church, but dang. It seems there is an almost systemic tension between God’s Kingdom and any man-made system. Starting with one’s culture as a whole and then all the way down to the subsystems (and maybe especially the economic). I know that’s kind of Kingdom 101, I’m just wondering if anybody else is wrestling with the pragmatic outworkings of such implications as one of the main areas of focus in order to see the kind of fruit you’re talking about, Janet. This stuff has been on my heart a lot.
That being said, I’m glad some others find these things difficult.
Bob,
I think you got to the point of what I have been trying to say. So what if Islam is inherently violent. Does that change our mission? Are we not supposed to love them or go to them in love because they are violent? And that is why I kept asking why it even matters that we talk about which brand of Islam is the normative brand.
I don’t think it matters. I don’t care which brand is the normative brand. We have been commanded to make disciples of all nations, violent or not. A discussion around whether or not Islam is violent does not change our mandate. It may change our strategy, but that is not what I sense is being discussed here.
The main thing I see coming out of this kind of discussion is increased fear and resistance to the mission we have been given. I say this because I hear it all of the time. I constantly have people asking me how safe it is to go and do what we go and do. When did being safe become a determinant in the mandate?
Anyway, I’m ranting now and need to stop. But, thanks for the comment.
Until ALL Have Heard,
JG
“This stuff has been on my heart a lot.”
I’m a simple person with a simple answer. Find someone who lives like that and ask if you can hang with them.
I think it’s caught not taught.
Did anyone watch the video? We seem to be commenting past it? I found it quite intriguing.
Alan I did watch the video. I think what the woman did took great courage. Sadly, the only voices challenging the extremism from Islam from within it at this point is primarily women - two books from two young women have come out specifically on this in the past few months. If you want to see a more “moderate” Islam, it will come from peo3le like the man, not the woman in the video. The reason is, 1.2 billion people aren’t going to change their religion today and the more conservative are sadly never going to listen to the women but some of them that are tired of violence and other issues will be more open to the man because he’s one of them. I heard a scholar say the answer to the issues of Islam will come from within it - not without it - I think he’s right.
Therefore, is the question really impact of the founder on the community? I think the lesson for Jesus followers is to emulate Jesus - and when we don’t our bad traits as “apostalic” leaders are passed on to the disciples. I think the other answer outside Jesus followers is summed up in Jesus command “Make disciples.”
On another note, that discussion sadly only takes place in America. Fear has gripped the Middle-East, and not just because of American presence there.
Forgive us for talking past the video - Alan - we want to be missional and you sir are our guru Apostle and want to take action!
Funny boy Bob.
I was just curious because no-one had mentioned the video.
Yeah, I found the video pretty provocative.
“I heard a scholar say the answer to the issues of Islam will come from within it - not without it - I think he’s right.”
I think that is what the man on the left in the video also said.
The woman seems to be pretty burnt on Islam as a whole. I wonder if her sentiments are closer to the truth than what mainstream media or mainstream political leaders tend to lean towards? Can it even be that black and white? Interesting stuff.
It does raise the issue doesn’t it, what effect will modernism and postmodernism have on Islam? I think it is a religion that is essentially premodern, but is being exposed to a kind of late version of the Enlightenment. I think these people are examples of what happens when people cannot reconcile an essentially fundamentalist faith in an increasingly global and post/modern world.
That is a really interesting thought. I am curious to see if these people are sort of a first fruits of what may be coming in greater force in the future for Islam. It’s hard for me to imagine what Islam’s future looks like outside of its continuing on the same path, but, from what I understand, that was also the popular thought towards the communist world view back in even as late as the end of the 70’s.
Just another question. Is there a difference between radical and moderate Christianity?
If my understanding of what I’ve been watching (yes I saw the video) and reading is correct, there really isn’t any difference for Muslims. (It’s getting late, so maybe I just didn’t get it all and need to go to bed)
What about w/ Christianity? Can one honestly be a moderate follower of Jesus? Aren’t we all called to be radical peacemakers? Even so far as martyrs, laying our lives down for our friends and enemies? Once again, this isn’t popular. But our leader did it.
That is precisely the point of a lot of those new atheist authors (can’t remember the name right now. Religion (or rather faith) does not allow for moderation. But the radical Jesus follower must walk the path of Jesus….how bad can we get if we become more like him?
Great question, Alan. I’m afraid I’d need to disagree with one of the first replies on this topic. Simply quoting a given passage or series of passages from the Qu’ran does not help answer the question. In fact, this demonstrates our inability to properly interpret a complex religion. This would be like a Muslim quoting some of the Old Testament passages and concluding that Judaism and Christianity are violent. We have to do more careful religious and cultural homework to answer such questions.
We need to recognize that Islam developed over time, as did the Qu’ran, and depending upon the strength of Islam, and the resistance it encountered, we see differing expressions and meanings of jihad (lit. “struggle”). At times jihad is interpreted in terms of physical violence against enemies of Islam, while at other times the emphasis is on intelletual or spiritual resistance.
In modern times we have seen the same differences of interpretation of Islam and certain Qu’ranic passages based not so much on the texts but upon a complex synthesis of cultural, sociological, political, and religious considerations. We now see what has been described as the two faces of Islam, one more moderate, and another very violent. It is up to the Islamic world to decide which expression of Islam will be dominant, and will represent the face of Islam to the West. It behooves Westerners to work with moderate Muslims to foster an expression of that form of Islam that cooperates with the non-Muslim world.
But while we’re thinking through all of this, let’s not forget the failures of the West in so many areas that inflames the expressions of Islam we find distasteful. Whether our almost unqualified support for Israel, our lax Western morality (often equated with Christianity), or many other factors as discussed by Meic Pearse in Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage (IVP, 2004), or Benjamin Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World (Ballantine Books, 1995), the problem is not just a given form of Islam, but the failures of the West and the church within it to incarnate the love of Christ cross-culturally so as to minimize those things which inflame radical Islam.
My two cents.
John Morehead
John and a darn good 2 cents it was. Best response yet. But I still wonder if there really is a moderate form of Islam? Or is its radical form more true to its spirit/essence?