A Critique of Islamic
Jihad
by jed pensar
PART 2
So far all bad and offensive news. I apologize for any
hurt feelings, but then again, to pretend that jihad does not exist is
folly. Jihad has already caused a lot of trouble, is presently causing
much trouble, and will no doubt cause more trouble in the future.
Listen to another thesis. If a concept exists, it can
be used.
Christians may ignore "jihad" because it sounds
offensive to Christian ears, but Muslims cannot do so because it is part
and parcel of Islamic theology. The Koran is littered with references to
jihad. Muhammad himself led the Muslims in numerous wars. The very
boundaries of Islam in the world today have been determined to a large
extent by jihad. Indeed, the fact that Islam is so widespread may be due
largely to successful military jihad in the past. Jihad is a way to
propagate the Islamic religion.
How then does jihad jive with compassion, mercy, and
peace?
Muslim theologians have thought through this question
for centuries. They themselves seem to have come up with the following
answers.
One, jihad of the sword (sayyaf) or lesser jihad.2 The
Muslim physically fights with unbelievers and enemies of the faith.
Throughout history, in the eyes of the Muslim extremist engaging in
lesser jihad, the definition of "unbeliever" and "enemies of the faith"
has included not only non-Muslims but also people who consider
themselves as Muslims as well, often those Muslims inclined to be more
peaceful and libertarian but do not totally agree with the theology or
politics of the extremist. It has also often happened that two Muslim
groups have officially waged jihad on each other, the most obvious
recent case being the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s wherein a million
people were slaughtered, and there will no doubt be more of such cases
in the future for as long as the word-concept of jihad is in existence.
In other words, even if the whole world has been converted to Islam,
there most probably will still be Muslim extremists (and also plain
opportunists in need of a tried and tested rationale) who will wage
jihad on whoever they perceive to be an unbeliever or enemy of the
faith, for as long as the word-concept of jihad is in existence and can
be used.
The Muslim who dies in combat goes to heaven (described
in the Koran as a materialistic paradise of soft couches, streams and
fountains, fruit trees, gardens, and vineyards, non-intoxicating drinks
and food, rich garments, gold ornaments, and silver dwelling places, and
a harem of eternal virgins called houris - the Muslim may find it
strange that this idea of heaven is shocking to a Christian). Listen to
this Koranic passage that violent Islamic sects may have taken seriously
in the past, and might very well take seriously at present or in the
future. "God has purchased of the faithful their lives and worldly goods
and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the
cause, slay, and be slain." This kind of jihad predominates among many
Muslim "fundamentalists" or "extremists". However, as mentioned above,
much of the Muslim expansion in history was precisely through this type
of jihad, and these conquests have never been repudiated by orthodox
Muslim theologians. It used to be, and still is for many Muslims, a
legitimate form of jihad! Any Sunni (as Filipino Muslims are) or Shiite
Muslim community, however peaceful, due to their acceptance of jihad as
legitimate, is sooner or later bound to produce individuals or movements
who think this way, especially during times of social stress, political
and cultural oppression, and economic impoverishment. It is only a
matter of time. However offensive and unsettling it might sound, let us
be honest about it and concede that this is a problem that peaceful
Muslims and the followers of other religions have to face and
solve.
The most notorious of the violent Islamic sects known
to Christendom was the Assassin (Hashshash or hashish smoker) sect of
Iran. 2,3 They were derived from the Ismailite Shiite sect in 1094 CE
during a leadership dispute over the true successor of Muhammad in
Shiite theology. 2 The Assassins were professional killers and were the
terror of Middle East Christians and of the Abbasid Islamic Caliphate
(which succeeded the Umayyads in 750 CE after a major battle)2,3 whose
generals, statesmen, and even Caliphs they regularly assassinated.3 They
reputedly drugged themselves in order to induce ecstatic trances before
they set off to murder their enemies as a religious duty. If an Assassin
died in the course of this duty of murdering a fellow human being, he
was believed to go to heaven. (As mentioned in the paragraph above, a
Koranic passage proposes that "to fight, to slay, and to be slain"
assures the believer of passage to the Garden of Paradise, something
that violent Islamic sects may have taken seriously in the past, and
might very well take seriously at present or in the future.) They killed
efficiently, amorally, without any compunction, and were highly skilled
in the art of murder. More peaceful Muslims must have tried for 200
years to teach them the error of their ways. Ominously, they remained as
vicious as ever and still at the peak of their military prowess until
the very end.
It took violence to end their violence, or if we are to
be Buddhist or Hindu about it, their violence reaped a karma of
violence. Abruptly, in 1258 CE, the Mongol army, then the most powerful
military in the world, led by Hulagu Khan, one of Genghis Khan's
grandsons, wiped them out (except for a few small still existent groups
that have become more peaceful).2 The Mongols gave them no quarter. They
sacked the Assassins' hill fortresses and castles in Iran, and "doomed"
them, killing all who fought them. The Assassin grandmaster was sent off
to Mongolia where he was publicly executed.
The Assassin sect has left its very name as a legacy to
the world, an apt description of the cold-blooded, amoral, efficient,
and highly skilled professional killer.
If the Assassins were so bad, you might ask how they
lasted for nearly 200 years. If the Mongols did not doom them, they
probably would have lasted much longer. Obviously, they had mass-based
support and many outright followers and members. Paradoxically, the
majority of the population sometimes supports groups espousing extremist
thought-systems, especially during times of political and cultural
oppression and economic poverty. The classic case that most Christians
are familiar with is Nazi Germany. Nazism won through for the unsavory
but simple reason that most Germans liked it in the 1930s. Let us
pretend that the Assassin sect was suddenly resurrected in a presently
troubled predominantly Muslim area (such as some parts of Mindanao).
There is no doubt that many if not most Muslims will vote for them. That
does not make the Assassins right. Majority vote does not make a cause
right. Most of those who will support the Assassins will be ordinary
people who are simply seeking a way out of political and cultural
oppression and economic poverty. Common Muslims will also support the
Assassins out of a sense of ethnic loyalty, because they perceive them
also to be Muslims. Most of the supporters will be simple folk living
ordinary lives, but a few will be extremely fundamentalist Muslims who
will see a way through the Assassin sect of literally fulfilling such
angry Koranic passages as "Make war on them until idolatry is no more
and God's religion reigns supreme," or "Those that make war against God
and His apostle and spread disorders in the land shall be put to death
or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or
be banished from the country."
If we Filipinos get into a similar situation in
Mindanao, one answer is to Federalize the Philippines in order to allow
the local peoples themselves to resolve political and cultural
oppression and economic poverty. Now pay attention. Separation of
religion and state, freedom of religion, and basic women's rights must
be protected. In other words, the basic freedoms and basic equality of
all men and women that is characteristic of modern representative
democracies must be maintained and enforced by Federal laws that
supersede local state laws. For the Federation to give in to the wishes
of Assassins or their ilk constitutes the perversion and betrayal of its
basic Spirit of Freedom.
An earlier notorious Islamic sect was the Kharijite,2,3
who murdered the 4th Caliph Ali, the husband of Muhammad's favorite
daughter Fatima. The Kharijites were well known for their puritanism and
fanaticism, did not consider the Sunnis and Shiites as true Muslims for
theological reasons, and were a painful thorn on the side of the
Caliphates until most of them were destroyed in the numerous wars of the
Islamic world before the turn of the millennium. (A moderate subsect
survives until today in Oman and North Africa.) In contrast to the other
Muslims, jihad for them was a pillar of Islam, and by all accounts they
were a terrifyingly violent sect that employed murder as a usual and
regular method to deal with perceived enemies. In terms of the
disruption that they brought to society, most of their victims were
other Muslims, and modern Muslims now living in liberal societies should
learn a lesson in this before they convert to an extremist theology
similar to that of the Kharijites and the Assassins.
The existence of angry passages urging believers to
commit acts of physical violence in the Koran makes Islam susceptible to
violent sectarianism, much more so than say Buddhism or Christianity.
Although it sounds offensive and disturbing, history has clearly shown
that ever since the inception of Islam there have always been Muslims
who did violence in the name of religion, and no doubt there will be
more in the future for as long as Muslims take the angry passages of the
Koran literally. Any peaceful person or society should immediately be
wary of any person or group professing Islam that advocates a Kharijite
or Assassin-like theology. Such a group, as history has shown, will no
doubt try to control a territory, by direct military or more deceitful
means, and coercively enforce their theology in that territory. It is a
relatively simple matter to emphasize the angry passages of the Koran
over the compassionate ones in the schools, mosques, and other
organizations that such a violent group controls, thereby allowing it to
gain more converts. If civil war is to be avoided, it is virtually
necessary for the rest of society to regain control of the territory,
schools, mosques, and other organizations that such a violent group
controls.
Furthermore, the problem often does not stop after the
political power of the violent Islamic sect has been broken. Teaching
the angry passages of the Koran to a Muslim population is like letting
the proverbial jinn out of the bottle. Much of the population will
remember that the violently angry passages can actually be put into
practice, and thus will serve as a mass base for any resurgence in
violent Islamism in the future. Other Muslims, whether they be new
converts or millennium-old Islamic ethnic groups, from other places and
times might even catch the infection via preachers, teachers, teachings,
writings, the mass media, or the Internet. After all, any Muslim (or
even any person) can just peruse any copy of the Koran in order to
confirm the existence of passages that urge the believer to commit acts
of physical violence; it is a matter of public knowledge.
Peaceful Muslims have for centuries, even until today
and no doubt in the future too, tried to step around these angry
passages, for example by claiming that they apply only to specific
conditions (see the discussion on defensive jihad below), or that they
are entirely metaphorical (see the discussion on greater jihad below).
Unfortunately, these passages undeniably still exist, written in stone
in the sacred scripture of Islam forever. If a concept exists, it can be
used. An educational curriculum supported by state laws that
deliberately debunks violent and coercive Islamism and teaches religious
love, peace, and freedom should be taught to the affected population.
You do not have to delve deeply into sacred scripture, theology,
philosophy, sociology, history, or political science in order to come to
this commonsensical conclusion; you only need to use your brains. In
such matters, do not think of such laws as infringing on freedom of
religion; rather think of them as purging freedom of violence. Thus, can
the violent jinn, created of fire and hostile to Adam, be purged from
the world through the light of learning and returned to the bottle of
the angry passages for another thousand years.
Portentously, these Islamic sects, who considered it
their duty to kill their enemies, had to be destroyed by violent means.
It was probably impossible to reason out or negotiate with these
religious fanatics because they believed that what they are doing is
correct and is a means to send them to heaven.
Two, defensive jihad, most compatible with the concept
of jihad of the tongue and hand,2 propagating Islam by proselytizing and
by doing right and correcting wrong. Defensive jihad obviously means
self-defense ("Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you,
but do not attack them first.") and it can also be legitimately used as
a theological rationale for fighting off invaders of Muslim territory.
This means that one cannot launch a military offensive against a neutral
or friendly culture group just for the sake of propagating Islam.
Classically, no action can be justified as jihad if any of the following
occurs: killing of non-combatants, POWs, or diplomatic personnel; use of
poison weapons (originally pertaining to poison-tipped arrows and
swords); inhumane means to kill; atrocities including mutilation of
people and animals and despoliation of natural resources; and sexual
abuse of women.4 Following such criteria, a Muslim should not kidnap,
rape, murder (like killing civilians, executing captives and hostages,
and bombing public places full of people), and desecrate the sacred
places of other religions (like burning churches and eliminating
crosses).
Unfortunately, many Koranic passages can be read the
other way. Here is an unpleasant, no-holds barred, probably offensive,
but necessary enumeration of some of these passages. Example one: Some
Koranic passages describe or presuppose taking captives and "spoils,"
which some may take to mean both property and persons, during jihad. In
the chapter entitled "Spoils," one passage states "Enjoy, therefore, the
good and lawful things which you have gained in war." Another passage
mentions holding captives for ransom. "Then grant them their freedom or
take ransom from them." This could allow religious bandits to justify
kidnap and ransom.
Example two: The Koran considers having sex with an
unspecified number of female slaves as legal. "Blessed are the believers
who restrain their carnal desires except with their wives and slave
girls, for these are lawful to them." Slavery is approved of and the
obvious way to acquire slaves is by enslaving captives. Putting two and
two together to equal five, sex maniacs may use such passages to justify
the rape of female "slaves". ("You are also forbidden to take in married
women, except captives whom you own as slaves.") As a possible
correction, the Koran also advises the believer to respect the decision
of female slaves to remain chaste in the context of avoiding
prostitution, but of course there are many ways to persuade captive
female slaves to consent to sex without turning them into
prostitutes.
Example three: The Koran recommends terrorizing,
beheading, maiming, cutting off alternate limbs, arresting, besieging,
ambushing, banishing, crucifying, killing, and warring with unbelievers.
("...you may strike terror into the enemies of God and the faithful, and
others besides them." "I shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels.
Strike of their heads, maim them in every limb!" "Make war on them until
idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." "When the sacred
months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them,
besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them." "Those that make
war against God and His apostle and spread disorders in the land shall
be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on
alternate sides, or be banished from the country." And so on.) Such
passages can be used to justify executions, mutilations, torture, and
whatever else these passages literally mean.
Example four: There is a Koranic passage that exhorts
believers to be "ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another."
This is a general statement and can thus be used to justify all manners
of atrocities on whoever is perceived to be an unbeliever. Contrast this
to the New Testament teaching: "Love your enemies, do good to those who
hate you・ Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love
those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those
who love them (Lk 6: 27-36)," and so on.
Example five: Although the Koran recommends
forgiveness, it clearly accepts the validity of the talion law (better
known to Christians as "an eye for an eye・" explicitly repudiated by
Christ in the New Testament - review Lk 6:27-36 above, and also Mt
5:38-48, Ro 12:9-21, 1 Cor 4:12-13, 1 Cor 6:7-8, 1 Pt 3:9, and so on).
As the Koran says: "Retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed," "Let
evil be rewarded with like evil," "Those who avenge themselves when
wronged incur no guilt," "a life for a life," and so on. There is thus
theological justification for religious war freaks to carry on revenge
and vendettas for any perceived injustice done to them.
Example six: The Koran considers idolatry an
unforgivable sin. "God will not forgive idolatry. He will forgive whom
He wills all other sins. He that serves other gods besides God has
strayed far from the truth." Next, the Koran has a passage that seems to
accuse Christians of having three separate gods. "Do not say 'three.'
God is but one. God forbid that He should have a son!" Finally, the
Koran also repeatedly condemns in the strongest of terms the Christian
belief in Jesus' divinity, denoted in Koranic passages with phrases
referring to Jesus as the son of God. The uninformed Christian will
probably be shocked to hear these two angry Koranic passages. "Admonish
those who say that God has begotten a son. Surely of this they could
have no knowledge, neither they nor their fathers: a monstrous blasphemy
is that which they utter. They preach nothing but falsehoods." "Those
who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous
falsehood at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break
asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust."
If that did not register in your brain, let me repeat
that the Koran considers Jesus' divinity, which is the basic Christian
belief of God's immanence and sign of His love (see Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn
4:9), as a "monstrous blasphemy" and a "monstrous falsehood at which the
very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains
crumble to dust." It does not take much imagination to equate the
existence of churches, crosses, and other Christian symbols that are
signs of the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity as idolatry. Let the
imaginative reader guess as to what the overzealous anti-idolaters'
imagination might lead them to do to churches, crosses, and other
Christian symbols; and to Christians themselves.
Example seven: The Koran forbids manslaughter without a
"just cause" as a condition, unlike the 10 Commandments of Judaism and
Christianity which prohibits it unconditionally. Let the reader think
through the implications of this!
This can go on and on, for passages similar to these
abound in the Koran, but let us cut this sorry and depressing discourse
with the statement that such angry passages have been, are being, and
will be used by people without compassion and mercy to justify all
manners of violence. If a concept exists, it can be used. A peaceful
person will of course simply sort of ignore these passages, or take
these passages entirely metaphorically, or believe them as valid only
during certain situations. At present, most Muslim theologians
fortunately have opted for the last, standing for defensive jihad with
such stringent criteria as mentioned above. The term "defensive" can
still be the subject of debate, and this is a problem because any Muslim
community that accepts defensive jihad sooner or later will produce
individuals or movements that will define "defensive" in offensive
terms, especially during times of social stress, political and cultural
oppression, and economic impoverishment. It is only a matter of
time.
Written as they are in stone in the sacred scripture of
Islam for eternity, the implications of many of the Koran's angry
passages for non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews who are
specifically named and targeted, both today and thousands of years from
now, are frankly appalling. A Muslim extremist can always choose to
interpret these passages as telling him to forcibly convert unbelievers
to Islam, or to kill them. This is actually what happened in the initial
expansion of Islam when unbelievers had to choose between Islam or
death; it might still be happening in some parts of the world, and will
surely happen again in the future for as long as the angry passages of
the Koran are taken literally. Yet, the by now horrified Christian
reader should be mindful enough not to fall into a tunnel vision of
Islam. It must be emphasized that the main theological message of
Muhammad, which is Islam or grateful submission to God's will, is a
religious ideal that both Muslims and Christians should seek. It is
remarkable how similar the spiritual writings of both Muslim and
Christian mystics are.5 The spiritual journey of both Muslims and
Christians lead to the same goal and the same God.5
How then does one submit oneself to God's will? In a
superficial "legalistic" sense, one can strictly act out a code of
conduct or "law" based on a sacred scripture such as the Decalogue,
Mosaic law, the 5 pillars of Islam, or even Shariah. Such laws are meant
to guide, but blind obedience in acting out such religious laws is
repeatedly condemned by Christ Himself and also the Spirit-inspired Paul
in the New Testament, as exemplified by their severe criticism of Jews
who thought themselves justified before God by strictly acting out the
Mosaic law. Justification is by faith apart from the works of the
(Mosaic) law (Rom 1:16-17, 3:21-30, 4:1-25, 7:4-6, 8:1-4, 10:1-13, Gal
2:15-21, 3:1-14, 4:4-5, 5:1-6, Eph 2:8-10, Phil 3:9, Heb 10:38-39, and
so on).
Lest Christianity be accused of espousing licentious,
isolationist, elitist, arrogant, or selfish behavior, it must be
explained that the above statement is definitely not a prohibition on
the Christian to do good works, as other New Testament passages
abundantly make clear that we shall be judged by our deeds (Mt 7:21,
16:27, 25:31-46, Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15-17, Rom 2:6,10,16, 2 Cor 5:10, Eph
6:8, 2 Tim 4:14, Jam 2:14-26, Rev 2:23, 12:17, 14:12-13, 19:8, 20:12-13,
22:12, and so on). Nevertheless, for Christ, it is the "spirit" of the
law that counts, not the letter. In Christian theology wherein God is
love (1 Jn 4:16), this means that one has to act in love in order for
one's actions or works to have any meaning before God (as 1 Cor 13:1-13
eloquently explains and 1 Cor 16:14 bluntly states) and even faith
without love is nothing. (See 1 Cor 13:1-13 again; it's always worth
re-reading.) Christ clearly subsumed the Decalogue and the Mosaic law
under the law of love (Mt 22:36-40, Mk 12:28-34, Lk 10:25-28, Rom
13:8-10, Col 5:14, and so on); and in New Testament gradated lists of
virtues and charisms, on top of all is love (Rom 5:1-5, 1 Cor 13:1-13, 2
Cor 6:6, Gal 5:5-6, Gal 5:22-23, Col 3:12-14, 2 Pet 1:5-7).
The New Testament is consistent in condemning blind
obedience to and superficial acting out of strict religious laws. Below
are some passages referred to in the paragraph above that we shall
page-lift from the Bible in order to give you a flavor of the NT
attitude toward strict religious laws. Originally, they referred to
Jewish Mosaic religious law based on the Old Testament, but they can
also be interpreted as general principles or guides applicable to any
set of strict religious laws such as Shariah laws. "Which commandment in
the law is greatest?・ You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind・ You shall love your
neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two
commandments (Mt 22:34-40, Mk 12:28-31, Lk 10:25-27, Rom 13:8-10, Gal
5:14)." In a single stroke, Christ has freed Christians from all the
mind-boggling complexities of Jewish religious laws, and the possible
authoritarian theocratic states that could have arisen from them. As
long as we act in love, we shall be rightly guided.
Next, listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul.
"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from
the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2)." "By works of the law no one will be
justified (Gal 2:16)." "You who are trying to be justified by law; you
have fallen from grace (Gal 5:4)." Also take note of the following
passage. "Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person
from the outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the
stomach and passes out into the latrine? (Thus He declared all foods
clean.) But what comes out of a person, that is what defiles. From
within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft,
murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy,
blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they
defile (Mk 7:17-23, Mt 15 10-20)." This eloquently emphatic teaching by
Christ frees Christians from dogmatic Jewish religious food laws, such
as the avoidance of pork, which the Koran accepts.
Finally, think through the following passages by Christ
that are consistent with the New Testament critique on the blind
obedience and superficial acting out of religious laws. "The sabbath was
made for man, not man for the sabbath (Mk 2:23-28, Mt 12:1-8, Lk
6:1-5)." "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love to stand
and pray・ so that others may see them・ pray to your Father in secret (Mt
6:5-8)." "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you・ do not
let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your
alms-giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will
repay you (Mt 6:1-4)." "When you fast, do not look gloomy like the
hypocrites・ anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not
appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden (Mt 6:16-18)."
The last three passages are about pillars of Islam - prayer, alms
giving, and fasting. These passages probably will elicit an emotional
response from serious Muslims who get to know of them for the first
time, and should be enough to give the Christian reader an idea of
Christian freedom from strict religious laws.
Muslims are enjoined to follow the 5 pillars of Islam,
and in stricter Islamic societies, Shariah. However, the Koran never
mentions explicitly how exactly does one successfully submit oneself to
God's will, and neither does the Bible. Communion with God is
indescribable. [In both the Islamic and Christian sense, it may have
something to do with gratefully acknowledging God's graciousness in
causing the Creation and the gift of life to be, and one's relative
nothingness, and in the process humbling, forgetting,4 or emptying5
oneself before the transcendent and compassionate Creator (see Philip
2:5-9). In addition, the New Testament in virtually every gospel and
epistle strongly implies that a good way is by always acting in the
spirit of love.]
According to New Testament logic, a Jew who strictly
follows the external forms of Mosaic law for the purpose of showing off
is not justified before God, just as a Muslim who strictly follows the
external forms of Shariah and the 5 pillars just so in order to convince
everyone how righteous he or she is has already strayed off the straight
path. Blind legalism in Islam is especially dangerous because of the
existence of angry passages in the Koran that seem to justify physical
violence. A blindly legalistic fundamentalist might just conclude that
literally fulfilling these passages is the way to Paradise. Recall how
the Kharijites turned physical jihad into a pillar of Islam, and so
killed, and killed, and killed.
Three, jihad as a purely mental struggle, called
greater jihad, a pure jihad of the heart.2 The Muslim struggles to get
rid of the desires that tend to separate him from God. Many Sufi sects
designated as "Amhadiya",2 and also a modern Indian sect by the same
name, adhere to this concept. Some Muslim theologians may classify some
of these groups as heretical, especially in view of their disposition
for esoteric interpretations ("tawil") of Koranic passages,4 but insofar
as they regard Muhammad as a prophet, read the Koran, and do their best
to do God's will, they certainly are Muslims. Generally, these Muslims
are very peaceful. Their resolution of the jihad problem is
admirable.
There is a passage from the Koran itself that praises
those who follow its clearly defined passages and criticizes those who
give meaning to its ambiguous passages. "It is He who has revealed to
you the Koran. Some of its verses are precise in meaning - they are the
foundation of the Book - and others are ambiguous. Those whose hearts
are infected with disbelief follow the ambiguous part, so as to create
dissension by seeking to explain it. But no one knows its meaning except
God. Those who are well-grounded in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; it
is all from our Lord.' But only the wise take heed." Sunni Muslim
theologians (whose followers comprise about 90% of all Muslims) take
this passage to mean that a Muslim should take the Koran as the literal
Word of God (just as some Christian fundamentalists take the Bible
literally).4 Consequently, Sufi mystics are often seen as mildly
heretical because of their tendency to give esoteric meanings to Koranic
passages.
As a first time reader of the Koran who is used to the
Christian New Testament emphasis on love as a standard for sacred
writings, I can empathize with the Sufi viewpoint. The Koran hardly ever
mentions love, rarely mentions peace outright, and is littered with
references to hellfire and jihad. A strong impression that I got is that
there is much anger in the Koran. The transcendence of God is also more
emphasized than His immanence, an experience that a Christian used to
the New Testament would find relatively unfamiliar. The Bible in general
tells much of both the transcendence and immanence of God, and Christian
theology in particular tends to elaborate on God's immanence. In the New
Testament, Jesus is also called Immanuel - "God is with us" (Mt 1:23;
also see Mt 28:19-20, Jn 14:26, Acts 2:4, and so on), and it is not
surprising that so many Christians (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox) consciously try to develop a "personal relationship" or seek a
"communion" with the immanent God. (The individual gods of the Hindu
pantheon also walk the earth in human incarnations called avatars, but
it is not clear if they are the same monotheistic God of
Judaism-Christianity-Islam. On the other hand, the Bhagavad Gita seems
to portray Krishna as the immanent incarnation of the one monotheistic
God.13)
Moreover, much of the jihad of the Koran refers to
physical fighting, and indeed recalls actual fighting with Arabic tribes
who still have not yet embraced Islam during Muhammad's lifetime. These
theological tendencies of Islam pose problems for the Muslim Sufi mystic
who yearns for communion with God. Historical accounts of mystics (from
all religious traditions) consistently describe them as shedding off
physical violence and anger in attaining communion with the immanent
God. Taking the physical fighting (jihad) described so often in the
Koran literally just won't do for a mystic. The only option left for the
Muslim mystic who believes in the sacredness and preeminence of the
Koran among sacred writings, and who is simultaneously walking the
straight path ("tariqa") of non-injury ("ahimsa" in Hindu and Buddhist
writings), is to interpret jihad as a purely mental struggle, a jihad of
the heart.
Knowledgeable Christian theologians who are sympathetic
to Islam never fail to extol Sufism.4,5,6 The obvious reason is that
they understandably project into Islam their own Christian bias for the
immanent and loving God. Yet it is a fact that the Koran, which is full
of wonderful passages of God's transcendence, speaks little of God's
immanence. Listen to this Koranic passage called the throne verse:4 "God
- there is no deity but God, the Living, the Eternal One. Neither
slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. His is what the heavens and the earth
contain. Who can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows
what is before and behind men. They can grasp only that part if His
knowledge which He wills. His throne is as vast as the heavens and the
earth, and the preservation of both does not weary Him. He is the
Exalted, the Immense One." There can hardly be a more magnificent and
powerful description of God's transcendence! Inferring from the Koran's
dearth of statements on God's immanence, it was not revealed to Muhammad
that the transcendent God, who can do anything, could also have become
human like the rest of us by His own will. A Christian theologian might
even try to recall Sufi teachings on God's love and project it to the
rest of Islamic theology,5 and yet it is a fact that the Koran hardly
ever mentions the word love.
After almost 1400 years of Islam, there are in fact
relatively few Sufis around, and many of the movers of the Islamic world
tend toward fundamentalism, with its jihad that can cause shudders to
run up the spines of Christians who have been affected by the real
thing. The Christian theologian's love affair with Islamic Sufism
clearly reflects an unrealized ideal that Christians who empathize with
Islam pray for. We pray O Lord, that the light of love illuminates our
Muslim brothers and sisters who yearn to embrace You, who are the light
of the heavens and the earth! Grant us the grace that we may be one in
peace in doing Your will on earth as it is in heaven, to love one
another as You have loved us!
Part 3 >>
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
1999-2001
Jed Pensar and Herb Mantawe. Manila,
Philippines.