25% of US Young Muslim Males say

Princedog · May 23, 2007, 11:43pm

?? Well. Sucide bombings, not so much. Suicidal rampages, check on both counts, I think you could say. We have seen abortion clinic bombings, and we have seen suicidal rampages by people who have probably played video games (and by probably, I really mean that they did), although the issue was presumably not the video games only.

At any rate polls can be very misleading and how you ask a question can yield very different results. I have Muslim friends who would not say suicide bombing is justified, ever; they do not deny the Holocaust (which isn’t unique to Muslims, my friends - we have seen plenty of non-Muslim deniers). To be honest though, if asked in a certain way, I think they would agree that is not their religion that “caused” 9/11, and honestly I am not Muslim but I would have to agree. A radical insurgency caused 9/11. Just like I don’t ascribe the sometimes unjustified actions of radical strains of Christianity (Fred Phelps, anyone?) to my mainstream Christian friends - I would not say their religion “caused” Fred Phelps to picket funerals and praise horrible events to “open our eyes.” I would not say Christianity was the “cause” of someone bombing an abortion clinic. I’d say the cause was an unstable person who took things too far in the name of religion. There is no question that jihadists responsible for 9/11 subscribed to a radical form of Islam, however that wasn’t the question asked, was it? If you asked that question, I doubt anyone at all would have answered no. But I guess this makes for a better survey. Polls are almost worthless in a lot of ways because there’s no context for the answers and questions can be extremely leading.

I know people like to believe that no Muslim could exist who isn’t an extreme terrorist that wants women to be oppressed, but this isn’t exactly my reality. I am not sure if people simply just really have absolutely no exposure to Muslims who do not subscribe to radical thoughts. “Remarkable restraint”? I wouldn’t say it’s ever justified, but I guess murdering innocent people in the name of religion is different than suicide bombing somehow. More acceptable.

frrrph · May 24, 2007, 12:18am

barrons, Voxdei: two wrongs don’t make one right - which is why I don’t support suicide bombings, in any context.

How about you?

Sheed30 · May 24, 2007, 3:00am

I didn’t really through the thread since i don’t really have time but here is what i have to say:

I am a young Muslim man that was born and raised in America. Suicide is completely forbidden. There has been ample mention of it throughout Islamic scripture and no-one has the right to dispute it. NO one who is Muslims is allowed to take away their own knowingly. you kill yourself or you put yourself in a position where you will die no matter what, then you are committing suicide. Suicide is forbidden and there is no way of getting around it. I have no idea who these pollsters are polling exactly (maybe just Palestinians or something), however NO SUICIDE WILL EVER BE CONDONED IN ISLAM!!!

barrons · May 24, 2007, 12:49pm

The vast majority of the mass shootings have been done by your garden variety misfits and crazies. I don’t think there was any real point to them. I would consider the abortion clinic bombers terrorists as I do the ELF arsonists who are going to jail for long periods. I can’t remember the motives of the Atlanta Olympics bomber.

Princedog · May 24, 2007, 11:29pm

Their motive is generally not that far off a suicide bomber from what we can ascertain. They see themselves as dying like a martyr, carrying out one final act that will make everyone see how wrong they were. It’s not that far off “dying for your cause”. All of this is misguided IMO, but it does seem to clear to me that in no cases of suicidal/homicidal rampages is the person just doing it for fun. Either way, religion or not, the implications are basically the same. People are willing to die and bring others down with them because they view it as making a statement…it takes a lot of the same justification, alone or as part of a larger group. Obviously as part of a larger group that condones this, people are more likely for a lot of reasons to pursue such a thing than they are if they are just a random individual. But as other posts have referenced, I do not believe the Muslim faith as a whole condones this and I certainly know many people strong in their faith who don’t. These are extremist groups, just like I would presume most Christians do not believe their beliefs are represented by the likes of the Westboro Baptist church.

mini · May 25, 2007, 12:15am

“Did I miss something in my religious education? I don’t believe you can find a word in scripture attriuted to Jesus that condemns self-defense or which encourages one to stand by while innocent life is threatened.”

Yes, you did. I’ll bet you can’t find in all the church writings in the first 300 years of Christian history a single line - even one - which condones the use of self-defense. Even one. (In fact, that was one of the specific distinctions that set off early Christianity from its early roots.) I’ll wait.

As for Christians in the military, the same Council of Nicaea that provided the creed compared Christians who served in the military to “dogs that ate their own vomit.”

They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends. They do good to their enemies. (Aristides, 9.276 - 125ad)

We will not ask you to punish our accusers. Their present wickedness is sufficient punishment. (Justin Martyr, 1.165 - 160ad)

We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Not only that, but to those who strike us on the on side of the face, we have learned to offer the other side also. (Athenagoras, 2.129 - 175ad)

He commanded (His followers) … not only not to strike others, but even, when they themselves are struck, to present the other cheek … (He commanded them) not only not to injure their neighbors, nor to do them any evil, but also, when they are dealt with wickedly, to be long-suffering. (Irenaeus, 1.408 - 180ad)

(Ireneaeus is responsible for the ultimate shape of the New Testament.)

Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins. (Clement of Alexandria, 2.548 - 195ad)

Tertullian was the orthodox view on the subject:

Hippias (a pagan) is put to death for laying plots against the state. No Christian ever attempted such a thing on behalf of his brethren, even when persecution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity. (Tertullian, 3.51 - 195ad)

If dragged to trial, he does not resist. (Tertullian, 3.110 - 197ad)

The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out “eye for eye”, and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the practice of the new law points to clemency. (Tertullian, 3.154 - 197ad)

Men of old were used to requiring “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” and to repay evil for evil, with usury! … But after Christ has supervened and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to attack others even with words, nor to merely say “fool,” without danger of the judgment. … Christ says, “Love your enemies and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors.” (Tertullian, 3.711 - 200ad)

If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, “To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also.” Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whateve that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord. (Tertullian, 3.712 - 200ad)

For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order … The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil. (Tertullian, 3.713 - 200ad)

Christ plainly teaches a new kind of long-suffering, when He actually prohibits the reprisals that the Creator permitted in requiring “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” (Tertullian, 3.370 - 207ad)

The Lord will save them in that day - even His people - like sheep … No one gives the name of “sheep” to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, or those who are killed when repelling force with force. Rather, it is given only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience - rather than fighting in self-defense. (Tertullian, 3.415 - 207ad)

Moreover, the command about the right cheek being struck is most (literally) impossible, since everyone who strikes (unless he happens to have some bodily irregularity) strikes the left cheek with his right hand. (Origen, 4.367 - 225ad)

(Celsus, a pagan critic) says, “They also have a teaching to this effect: that we should not avenge ourselves on one who injures us.” Or, as Christ expresses it: “Whoever will strike you on the one cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Origen, 4.634 - 248ad)

We revile no one, for we believe that “revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God.” And we read, “Bless them that curse you; bless, and curse not.” Also, “Being reviled, we bless.” (Origen, 4.654 - 248)

Do not willingly use force and do not return force when it is used against you. (Commondianus, 4.212 - 240ad)

We may not hate. And we please God more by rendering no return for wrong. Therefore, we exhort you to make statisfaction to God. Do this while you have the power, while there yet remains in you something of life … We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred. In return for the torments and penalties that are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. (Cyprian, 5.465 - 250ad)

Do no one any injury at any time; provoke no one to anger. If an inury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ. And even as you desire Him to forgive your transgressions, also forgive others theirs. (Theonas of Alexandria, 6.161 - 300ad)

Religion is to be defended - not by putting to death - but by dying. Not by cruelty, but by patient endurance. Not by guilt, but by good faith. For the former belongs to evil, but the latter to the good … For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, tortures, and guilt, it will no longer be defended. Rather, it will be polluted and profaned … And, therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. We do not act as those persons who would have it appear that they are defenders of thier gods, who rage without restraint against those who do not worship them. (Lactantius, 7.157 - 304-313ad)

When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. (Lactantius, 7.158 - 304-313ad)

The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken form him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him. (Lactantius, 7.160 - 304-313ad)

If anyone should be so shameless as to inflict injury on a good and just man, such a man must bear it with calmness and moderation. He will not take upon himself his revenge. Rather, he will reserve it for the judgement of God. He must maintain innocence at all times and in all places. And this commandment is not limited to merely his not (being the first to) inflict injury on another. Rather, he should not even avenge it when injury is inflicted on him. For there sits on the judgement-seat a very great and impartial Judge. (Lactantius, 7.183 - 304-313ad)

“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” That is the expression of justice. However, His injunction that a man who is struck on the one cheek should offer the other also - that is the expression of goodness. Now, are justice and goodness opposed to each other? Far from it! Rather, there has only been advancement from simple justice to positive goodness. (Disputation of Archelaus and Manes, 6.216 - 320ad)

yourworld · May 25, 2007, 12:29am

Why do muslims so eagerly feel they have to “defend” their faith?

Nobody really attacks islam as much it is raging war on the rest of civilization.

The only ones attacking islam are militant extremists who are profaning their own religion by committing mayhem and wreak havacs in the name of their god.

New Items:

US just recently arrested a native-borned American who was converted to islam and were planning domestic attacks. He had marred a muslim woman and told her jovially that he wanted lots of children - my little “jihaddies” - to raise war against infidels.

paying3tuitions · May 25, 2007, 7:39pm

Mini, a very cool post. I like to read source materials, especially when they aim to demonstrate a history of nonviolence within a faith.

A small point, and one often misunderstood, the famous phrase “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.” By itself, you get the image of Justice meaning somebody gouging out the eye of another person to respond, but it’s not so. The phrase is preceded by the important verb, “Give.” You shall give an eye for an eye…" meaning if you’re the harmed victim of violence, you are entitled to justice. Justice does not mean to take the perpetrator’s actual eye, but that the victim be compensated with material payment in equal value to whatever part of the victim’s body was permanently ruined. “Give eye for eye” is the first expression for the concept of victim restitution, actually progressive today. If someone blinds me through a violent act, I’m not supposed to gouge out their eye to get justice. Instead, the value of my ruined eye can be measured and calculated, so I should go to the rabbinic court and be entitled to restitution if I can prove my case. The perpetrator would owe me the equivalent value of my ruined eye. If I can’t work anymore because my work used a microscope each day, that eye is worth even more. What if the eye left to me was a blind eye, then the lost second eye is worth even more…so from there you get the idea of individual damages, depending on each case and situation presented. “Give eye for eye” is the legal basis for today’s modern civil damage suits, and strengthens the cause for case-by-case decision making in a court following an injury, rather than assigning one blanket value to bodily damage. One eye can actually be worth more to another person (if their other eye was blind,for example). Everyone’s eye is not worth the same amount, it depends on the case.

Justice to “defend” oneself is not to repeat the harm in equal measure, rather to be accorded relief in equal measure, all to be figured out in Courts of Law, not duked out in the streets. I think it’s possible to believe in both systems: pursue justice through courts when wronged, but practice non-violence constantly on the streets and in daily life. If you get hurt on the cheek, you still have a cheek. So, I guess it would be too much if Jesus would have said, “if a man breaks my leg, I should give him the other one to break.”

Anyway, thanks for the good read.

higherlead · May 25, 2007, 9:44pm

mini - good try but nothing I see in any of those quotes enjoins a Christian from defending somebody else. I may have to turn the other cheek and forgive my enemies when attacked but that doesn’t mean I have to stand by while evil is inflicted on others, particularly if the afflicted are not themselve Christians.

But a bigger ojection. I am sort of a fundamentalist in that if I can’t find it in scripture I don’t take it as scripture. Sure I know the folks you quite were the ones that did the picking and choosing to decide what was “scripture” but I can argue it was the hand of God that guided them despite themselves. Scripture is a lot more ambiguous. It has Christ blasting the rich but I don’t see a bad word about about the soldier. Did he tell the Centurion to take up another line of work? Did Paul use Roman law and his Roman citizenship to the fullest to continue his mission? What is Christ using if not force to cast out demons? He didn’t drive Satan away when Satan tempted Him in the desert but he didn’t hesitate to do it when the devil possessed others. (Please I don’t want to get into a discussion of demonic possession - I am a skeptic on the subject but certainly everyone in the early church believed).

To my mind the Christ revealed in the scriptures has been equally misused by crusaders and pacifists. He doesn’t from scripture seem to be a fellow who wanted to save the world, but only the poor souls in it who mostly make their own hell here on earth. There is no doubt the world would be a more peaceful place if men like him ran it, but it is also clear that men like him have no intention of running the world. His kingdom is elsewhere and in that elsewhere there will be justice and there is a hell, and hell ain’t a peaceful concept.

higherlead · May 25, 2007, 10:02pm

Of course you carry this pacifism stuff far enough and you are forced to become an anarchist or at least advocate it. I mean how could a nation of pacifists supporta government that claims as all governments do the exclusive right to the use of force. How can you enforce that give an eye for an eye without prisons and police? And how can you ask a cop to stop the guy who is mugging you if you are a pacifist? And a bigger question in my mind is how you can you ask the cop not to stop somebody who is mugging your neighbor? The still small voice in the back of my mind just tells me that is as morally wrong as it is foolish.

But that said I can accept that some people, mostly people way better than me are pacifists.

rorosen · May 26, 2007, 7:47am

pacifism and suicide bombing/mad rampage might issue from the same apparent impulse, that of surrender. personal sacrifice. but of course the real impulse is self-glorification and ultimate reward in worldly and otherworldly headlines. and of course, my favorite, unassimilated male hunger for male approval. not for nothing are the bombers/snipers usually babyfaced pretty boys.

higherlead · May 26, 2007, 3:01pm

Interesting point rorosen.

UCLAri · May 26, 2007, 3:18pm

For those of you interested in an academic perspective on this issue, check out Robert Pape’s recent work:

<a href=“http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf[/url]”>http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf</a>

conyat · May 28, 2007, 5:12pm

higherlead, “Turn the other cheek” meant “turn it to accept another slap with meekness” not “turn around and defend yourself.”

In the New Testament, there were even exhortations to slaves to be submissive and obedient to their masters. Nothing about Christians being able to use violence to free enslaved persons from slavery. Jesus even stopped the apostles from defending him when the Romans came to arrest him and He healed the ear that Peter cut with his sword.

Many of the early Christians expected Christ to come again within their lifetimes. At one point, they even had to urged to plant crops, because many thought it was pointless–the Second Coming would happen before the crops would mature. So to them, redressing earthly wrongs was simply not a priority; the reckoning would come in the next life, where the rewards and punishments far outweighed anything men and women could do.

higherlead · May 28, 2007, 6:21pm

“In the New Testament, there were even exhortations to slaves to be submissive and obedient to their masters. Nothing about Christians being able to use violence to free enslaved persons from slavery. Jesus even stopped the apostles from defending him when the Romans came to arrest him and He healed the ear that Peter cut with his sword.”

And that is exactly my point. Did Jesus take this obvious teaching moment to tell Peter that folks who cut off other peoples ears defending other folks won’ make it into my Father’s kingdom? No. He simply made the observation that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Chrits’s appointment with crucifix was pre-ordained. That is why I said this was such an extraordinary set of circumstances. Peter wasn’t to interfere because the appointment with the cross had to happen and Jesus Himself couldn’t/wouldn’t prevent it.

The injunction to turn the other cheek applies to the individual Christian when he himself is attacked. It doesn’t mean he has to stand by while the Gestapo roundup Jews or the slave catcher comes for his property.

Again when the Centurion sent his servant to Jesus imploring Him not to come to hos house to save his slave because he was unworthy to have Jesus in his house did jesus take this ovious teaching moment to tell the Centurion to get a different line of work? Didn’t happen.

You can find plenty of love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek when you are attacked in the bible but finding and explicit or implicit directive not to use force to defend others is missing… and not because there were not opportunities to lay it out.

conyat · May 28, 2007, 6:31pm

All this smoke to hide the fact that you find can’t one instance of the New Testament where it says that Christians are allowed to use violence in defense of others.

higherlead · May 28, 2007, 10:22pm

Or alternatively all this smoke because you can’t find one instance in the New Testament that says a Christian shouldn’t defend others. Take your pick.

conyat · May 28, 2007, 11:39pm

Hardly seems like Christians were meant to go round like masked avengers. Moreover, I don’t think there’s one instance in the early Church where Christians did this. Not one, even though oppression and violence were all around them.

No, the Christian wasn’t expected to stand by. The Christian was expected to exhort the slave to be more obedient. Titus, Chapter 2, Book 9:

To refresh your memory, this was mini’s challenge to you:

Have you found that line yet?

25% of US Young Muslim Males say

CONNECT WITH US