A Call to Violence: The Similarity Between the Bible and Qur’an

Anthony Calvelli

There are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. They share some of the same prophets, believe in the existence of a Messiah, and believe in a second coming of Jesus, to name a few. Most surprising to me, though, is the similarity of what the Bible and Qur’an say about violence and war.

The 9/11 attacks and ensuing Global War on Terrorism were a catalyst for anti-Islamic sentiments in the United States. Still, seventeen years after the attacks, many Americans have a bias towards Muslims. This stems from a misunderstanding of “jihad,” and belief in the fallacy that the Qur’an is a “violent” text, encouraging Muslims to force non-believers to convert. In reality, the Qur’an is no more inflammatory than the bible regarding its stance on violence and the intent of jihad was never to force conversion upon people. Verse 2:252 of the Qur’an says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion […] Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” In other words, Muslims believe that those who do not believe in Allah simply will not receive the benefits that such a relationship with Allah bears.

Many are quick to point to the Suras as an example of how violent Islam is. One of the main themes of the Suras is that God encourages people to fight for his cause. For instance, Sura 22:58 says, “Those who leave their homes in the cause of God, and are then slain or die, on them will God bestow verily a goodly provision.” However, the Suras are primarily referencing defensive fighting. The Bible echoes a similar call to fight, in some cases with more incendious language than found in the Qur’an. For example, Deuteronomy 13:12-15 says, “If thou shalt hear […] Certain men […] saying, Let us go and serve other gods, […] Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein.” This is somewhat similar to the Qur’an’s calls to fight non-believers. However, this passage from Deuteronomy advocates a more offensive approach as opposed to the defensive fighting discussed in many of the Suras. It surprised me that statements like these came from the Bible. The main takeaway here is that both the Bible and Qur’an advocate violence in some fashion; as such, it is easy to pick and choose quotes that cast a negative light on one of the two religions.  

Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive. There are some key differences, especially regarding the crucifixion of Jesus and his ascendance into heaven, but these do not make the two religions irreconcilable. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but was not the Messiah and did not die on the cross. They believe another man was crucified, and Jesus ascended into heaven after meeting with his disciples. Christians, on the other hand, believe Jesus was the Messiah and was crucified. Clearly, these two views on the crucifiction are mutually exclusive. However, a disagreement on this does not necessarily mean the two ideologies cannot coexist. Even if we had definitive evidence that the Christian view of what happened is historically accurate, that would not invalidate Islam as a whole. Likewise, if we were certain that Jesus was not crucified, that would certainly complicate Christian scripture, but ultimately would not invalidate the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Christianity and Islam have more similarities than we might think at first glance. While there are some major differences between them, the two are not mutually exclusive regardless of which is closer to the historical “truth.”

Word Count: 520 (without quotes)

Works Cited

Ali, Ahmed. Al-Qurʻān: a Contemporary Translation. Princeton University Press, 2001.

Coogan, Michael David., et al. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Stop hitting yourself!

Christianity and Islam have much more in common that I previously realized. The most surprising of these similarities are the identical historical origin and the important of Jesus of Nazareth. Whereas Christianity’s foundational figure was the second son of Abraham, Isaac, Islam’s figure was his first son, Ishmael. It is interesting to think the history of two religions, generally believed to be very different, began in the same spot. This cannot be said about many other religions in history. The Greek Gods certainly did not incorporate Abraham into their theology. Neither did Hinduism. This historical pairing makes it all the more interesting how the two religions grew so far apart.

Not only does their common history and common God tie these two religions together, but they also both assert that Jesus of Nazareth was an important religious figure. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet treated with equal reverence as other important prophets of Islam: “ We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them . . . (Quran)” On the other hand, Christians believe Jesus to be not only a prophet, but the literal son of God, the Messiah. Although they interpret Jesus’ role in religious history differently, it is clear Islam and Christianity share many important religious figures.

Due to these similarities, the two ideologies are clearly NOT mutually exclusive. Although many aspects of the religions are different, several fundamental principles are the same. This fact makes it hard for me to believe so much fighting took place between the two religions during the Crusades. At first it seems counter intuitive to attack a people who share so many religious principles with you. That is until I recall some of the calls to Crusade we have read. For example, Pope Urban did not preach about the similarities between Islam and Christianity. Instead, he called the Muslims devils and dangers to Christianity. The general populace during the Crusades were not well educated on any religion other than their own. And so, if a charismatic, influential religious leader like Pope Urban were to call Christians to arms, they probably wouldn’t have considered the possibility that the similarities I discussed above existed.

It is understandable that peasants during the Crusades might not understand the similarities between the two religions, but it is very disappointing that even today there are huge tensions between Muslims and Christians. Even in today’s society, which is certainly much more educated than society during the Crusades, there is fighting between the two religions. Muslim extremists view Christianity as blasphemy, and many Christians see Islam as a religion of violence and evil. This fighting reminds me of the old elementary school saying “stop hitting yourself.” For two religions which share so many fundamental principles to be fighting for so long seems totally counter intuitive.

 

Words: 495

Afghanistan the new proving ground for Modern Crusaders?

In the distant roaring cold hills of Afghanistan, the Middle East continues to see armed conflict, continuing the thousand year cycle of the region. Reminiscent back to the Christian response to Muslim Jihad and the motive to evangelize, the Middle East has become a proving ground for a new generation of crusaders. ISIL and remnants of Al’Queda have sought to fulfill a Jihad in order to curve western aggression. This has been matched by the continuous U.S. and allied campaigns in the region, but many nationals are traveling independently of any military industrial complex or support to wage a war on the Jihadists. Duke recognizes the global contingent of fighters who have come together in order to hopefully achieve a goal their governments have failed to achieve, eradicating Islamic Terror. These militants leave the comfort of their homes and apartments in places such as New York City or London in order to travel to Afghanistan and take up arms against radical Islamic terror. Jordan Matson, a former U.S. Army infantry soldier, and evangelical Christian, reiterated a call to action from his governments inaction, “I decided that if my government wasn’t going to do anything to help this country, especially Kurdish people who stood by us for 10 years and helped us out while we were in this country, then I was going to do something.” Duke goes on to describe this new civilian dominated warfare sector as the 21st century Crusade, which pins evangelical and Catholic civilians against the Islamic forces trying to capture Muslim territory. This begs the question about Duke’s characterization to determine if ‘Crusade’ might be a misrepresentation previous events in Crusaded over. I would argue that it is a mischaracterization. When we examine the underpinnings of the first crusade, Pope Urban II used his divine position to create a call to action which was officially sanctioned by the Church as well as many European counties in an effort to adhere to the divine authority of the Papacy. In this situation, no leader from nay religion has established a call to action against Islamic aggression and a small contingent of self-described crusaders rather than a united Christian front. Pope Francis, the current Papal authority in the Catholic Church has refined the doctrine of how Christians need to respond to Islamic terrorism by saying, “If we wish to fight terrorism, we must resist the temptation to become terrorists ourselves.” The implication that any member of the Church is taking up arms against Islamic insurgents is directly against the ruling of the current Papacy. Instead of describing this fight as a Crusade, I would use the term War on Terror in the hope to protect innocent civilians and promote peace through the abolishment of individuals who use fear to divide citizens.

Word count-457

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/20163-modern-crusaders-fighting-isis

The Validity of Crusading

Maxwell Shuman

During the Middle Ages death and agony played a large role in worldly matters and the survival of nations.  Due to the constant war and plague which continually cursed the entire Mediterranean from the Middle East to Western Europe, there was little time for civilizations to truly settle in.  Following the attacks of the Seljuk Turks in Byzantium, the war between Christians and Muslims grew exponentially and led to the Crusades.  I believe that there was some validity to the Christian crusade for the capture of Jerusalem, however, when looking at the bigger picture it is much more complicated.  The Crusade was valid in the sense that in the time prior to the crusade Christians were persecuted and massacred in the thousands by Muslims in the holy city.  To go along with this, their places of worship were either destroyed or used as stables.  Contrary to the validity of the taking of Jerusalem, however, I do not believe that the Christians necessarily have a greater claim to the holy city than that of Jews and Muslims.   Being that all three religions of the book claim Jerusalem to be the Holy Land, it is important to understand their stance on violence and, in turn, a crusade killing thousands of people.  In the bible, one of the most famous passages from the gospel of Matthew states that “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”  A common interpretation of this goes along with Jesus’ preaching of mercy and love for all human life.  With this view in mind, a crusade to kill thousands of people who have wronged you does not seem entirely justified.

I believe that while there is bad blood between the religions and persecutions both ways have taken place, this does not give one another the right to ruthlessly attack and kill thousands of innocent people because of their religious beliefs.  Looking further back in history it was not terribly long ago that both religions were brand new and were eventually accepted by the Roman Empire as a legal religion within the republic.  With this in mind, I think that the crusade to smite men of a different religion is wrong and should not be the sole reason for such a terrible event.  The only reason which gives the crusade validity is that fact that Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem were massacred and treated like dirt while on a holy mission.  If it were the opposite and Christians had massacred Muslims who were on pilgrimage to Mecca then a crusade against Christians would not be outrageous either.

Word Count: 419

Today’s Crusade

The Crusades were wars fought for religious purposes between Christians and Muslims. The two religions fought to obtain control of different cities and sites that were considered divine to both religions. These wars were famously named the crusades because they were fought for a cause that people were passionate about. Although, The Crusades occurred in the middle ages the term crusade remains present in modern day as a way to describe a fight in which a group feels deeply for.

I read an article titled “Young Anti-Abortion Crusaders Find New Tactics to Promote Their Message”. This article outlines the fight to end abortion. Ever since the passing of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is considered a right to privacy, activists have fought to overturn such legislation. Every year hundreds of thousands of people gather in Washington DC to participate in the March for Life. The March for Life rallies people in protest of the legality of abortion. The crusade to end abortion extends past the March for Life to include protesters at local abortion centers and online in the form of social media and blog posts.  Those who gather to march and those who oppose abortion feel very deeply about it and their reasons to oppose it come from very personal places whether it be because of the psychological effect that an abortion can have on a woman, the health risks involved in having an abortion, or religious reasons.

The Pro-life movement is justified in calling their fight to end abortion a crusade because of the similarities that exist between the Crusades and the fight to end abortion.  Both were wars on cultural norms with a basis in religion. Many people who attend the March for Life and consider themselves to be Pro-life often times also identify themselves as a sect of Christianity. Whenever religion is involved the disagreement becomes extremely heightened because it challenges a group’s way of life and fundamental ideas and beliefs. Religion is a deeply personal thing that people will defend by all means necessary.  

Although, there are many similarities between the actual Crusades and the crusade against abortion there are also a few differences. While the Crusades were fought over actual places and sites, the crusade to end abortion is fought over an ideal. In addition, the Crusades were very physical battles often being described as bloody and ruthless. Whereas, the crusade to end abortion takes the non-violent path using rallies and protests to win their cause. Although the two differ in certain aspects they both involve groups of people fighting for causes that they feel passionately about.

 

Word Count: 442
Jesko, Jackie, et al. “Young Anti-Abortion Crusaders Find New Tactics to Promote Their Message.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 9 July 2015.

The Parallels of Islam and Christianity

Blake Bizousky

Before our discussion in class, I had very little knowledge of the Islamic religion and it was surprising to see the similarities. To scale my knowledge, I did not know that Christianity and Islam both worship the same god only through different interpretation. Although some may argue that they do worship a different god, both religions can be traced back to share the belief in the God of Abraham. Additionally, both religions look at the Old Testament as word of God.
Another standout similarity between the two was their take on justified holy war. Islam and Christianity alike have countless scripture preaching peaceful words, however, both also have a fair amount of seemingly violent scripture that is up to interpretation. From the Qur’an, “Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle. [Christians and Jews alike] delude away from the truth” (Sura 9:29-31). One could interpret this reading to an extreme and place the Islamic faith against those of Christianity or Judaism. Under the wrong eye certain parts of the Qur’an, such as jihad, the struggle against enemies of Islam, can lead to very violent interpretations. Osama bin Laden’s ideas were based on an extremist view of jihad within the Qur’an.
Very similarly, Christian extremists during the Crusades slaughtered over a million people believing it was justified by God. “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment of the wrongdoer” (Roman 13:4). The extreme interpretation during the time of Pope Urban II triggered the Crusades lasting around 200 years. During, this time all those who stood in their way of the Holy Land we killed.
Though the two religions have several similarities I do believe that they are mutually exclusive. The first big difference comes from the Islamic interpretation of Jesus. To Muslims, Jesus was not the son of God, he was born of the Virgin Mary, but only to be a prophet. Instead of the Holy Trinity including God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims believe there is only one singular God. The Islamic faith is based on the teachings of Muhammed. In which, Muhammed is believed to be the last prophet of God. Even though they both have similar prophets and scripture the foundation of the two religions are much different. Within Christianity the Holy Trinity is the center stone, however, it contradicts the bases on which Islam is founded on.

Word Count – 437

Was the First Crusade Just?

I think the Crusaders in the first crusade were not justified in continuing on to capture Jerusalem after defending Constantinople because the Pope simply wanted to be in possession of the city. The First Crusade was a military campaign by western European forces to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control. Conceived by Pope Urban II following an appeal from the Byzantine emperor Alexios, around 60,000 soldiers and at least 30,000 non-combatants set off on their quest. After campaigns in Asia Minor and the Middle East, great cities such as Nicaea and Antioch were recaptured and then, on 15 July 1099 BC, Jerusalem itself.

The Seljuk Turks won significant victories in Asia Minor against Byzantine armies beginning in 1071 BC. As a result, they gained control of the cities of Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem by 1087 BC. The Byzantine emperor Alexios noticed the Turk’s expansion into the holy land and used their aggression as a chance to gain the help of western armies in his battle to control Asia Minor. Alexios’ appeal to the west for troops was met with fervor by Pope Urban II and thousands of European knights who had just defended Constantinople from the invading Turks. Pope Urban was specifically interested in leading a force to help out the Byzantines because this would give him a chance to build up a great crusader force and to take back Jerusalem for the Church. His thinking was that leading a crusade to Jerusalem would unite the churches once again and secure his place in history. The campaign of violence was justified to the crusaders as being a fight for liberation and that the objectives were “just and righteous ones.” The problem with this argument, however, is that it assumes the crusaders were taking back what was rightfully theirs to take, which is incorrect. The land of Jerusalem belonged to neither the Turks nor the Church. The taking of Jerusalem did not include concern for the city’s people, as they were killed in the conquest, but it rather only satisfied Pope Urban’s desire to control the holy land again and to gain legitimacy from it.

The bottom line is, being in control of Jerusalem carried so many implications as to the legitimacy of your religion that it would be hard to resist taking the chance to secure it for yourself. This was the whole source of the conflict in the crusades. There were two groups who fought to take control over “holy land” that neither had complete rights to control, yet they both felt strongly about the potential for future gain and had a desire for legitimacy so strong that it was worth going to war over.

 

Works Cited

https://strangenotions.com/the-crusdades-urban-legends-and-truth/

Cartwright, Mark. First Crusade. Ancient History Encyclopedia. 09 JUL 2018. Web. https://www.ancient.eu/First_Crusade/

Word Count: 445

Medieval in the Modern World

Philip Dalke

In recent news, a Saudi Arabian journalist named Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in a horrific fashion inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The case gained worldwide coverage after the cover up by the Saudi Arabian government was exposed by Turkish authorities. Many journalists are sympathetic to Khashoggi and feel that the Saudi Arabians are not being truthful in their investigation. In an opinion article by The Guardian, the killing was described as a “medieval horror.” The full quote goes, “In the weeks since disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist, regime critic and Washington Post columnist, newspapers have been full of the medieval horror of his presumed killing.”  The article goes on to explain the Mr. Khashoggi was dismembered while inside the consulate. The murder is barbaric and unwarranted. The Saudi government, or at least someone high up within the monarchy, ordered the killing on an innocent man. I believe the term “medieval” is appropriate in describing this killing.

When I think of the Middle Ages I associate it with the crusades and torturing. A quick Google search results in many torture devices from the Middle Ages, including Judas Cradle, the Iron Chair, The Rack, and rats. All are equally scary and each accomplished their goal of causing extreme pain to its victims. I believe that in the Middle Ages the practice of torturing criminals and enemies was more accepted. Torturing produced the results that the torturers wanted, a slow painful death to the victim. Public executions were common and people were entertained by them. Even the church was not exempt from torturing victims during the Middle Ages. Churches during the Middle Ages had the most power in society and commonly practiced torture on people. Torturing wasn’t really addressed until 1252 when Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull that limited the use of torture. The papal, Ad extirpanda, set limits to how people could torture their victims. It stated that torturing could not cause the loss of limbs, it could only be used once, and the evidence against the accused had to be certain. It did not outlaw torturing within the church, but rather made guidelines for its use.

I argue that Khashoggi’s death can be described medieval. Dismemberment has not been a common practice among civilized people since the Middle Ages. Torturing in general has become taboo in society and causes extreme reactions when it is discovered. Jamal Khashoggi’s murder is a sad example of how medieval practices are brought back to society today. As bad as it sounds,I think that if he were to have been killed with a gun his story would not have gained as much attention as it did.

 

Word- 446

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/the-guardian-view-on-the-death-of-a-critic-riyadh-must-pay-a-price

Different but Similar

Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world today as well as for the time of the Crusades. While many people think of these two religions as being very different because of their practices and traditions, yet there are similarities between them.

The main difference between Christianity and Isalm is over who Jesus Christ. Christianity, centered in the Holy Roman Empire and the area of modern day Europe, believes that Jesus Christ is the divine son of God. Whereas Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet sent by Allah, born of the Virgin Mary but not a divine. The other major difference is in the holy book of each religion. The Bible, the book of the Christians, was written by serval different authors who were inspired by God. The Bible was later combined and eventually translated to create the book we have today. The Qur’an, the book of the Muslims, was revealed to the prophet Mohommad, traditionally written in Arabic.

While each has its own belief about Jesus, both believe he was born to the Virgin Mary and that he taught about God. Both are monotheistic, believing in one God/Allah, which is Arabid for ‘god’. And both have sacred religious texts from both older and modern times, the Old Testament and New Testament for Christians and the Qur’an and the Sunna for Muslims.

Another similarity between Christianity and Islam is the split that occurred in both religions. The Christians split into the East (Catholic Chruch) and West (Greek Orthodox) after the Great Schism of 1054 due to political and theological differences. The Muslims split into the Sunni and Shia after the death of Mohammad based off of whole was the rightful heir. Both religions faced many years of conflict and internal fighting debating which side was correct.

So a question to ask yourself is whether or not these two different but similar religions are mutually exclusive. From my previous knowledge and what we have learned recently, I believe that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive because at some points they did influence each other, and without the presence of the other religion they would be very different. Both base their sacred texts off of much of the same events in history and different interpretations of said events would have an influence. Also, the Crusades and all the conflict between the two religions created this animosity which still can be felt today.  

406

Jesus: Prophet, God, or Lunatic?

The teaching that Jesus is a well-respected prophet of God in Islam was certain a surprise to me the first time that I was informed about it. It is strange since there are no other religions that have any particular respect for or mention of the Christian God, so this similarity between the two is quite unique. While the presence of similarities may seem to align the religions with each other, the opposite is true. The two religions actually directly oppose one another because of their view of Jesus.

In Christianity it is taught that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind and is both fully God and fully man. Throughout the Christian Bible Jesus takes the title of the Son of God and very directly claims to be divine. In the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verses 6-7 Jesus says: “I am the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Here Jesus very clearly claims that following his teachings is the only path to salvation, and he is the link between mankind and God. In contrast to the Christian view the Muslims teach that Christ was simply a prophet, stating “Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!” (5:575, Yusif Ali) This difference in beliefs may come from altered interpretations of what Jesus was teaching, which would not cause the religions to be mutually exclusive, however there is another key teaching of Islam that prevents the two from aligning.

Islam teaches that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God or have any divinity during his ministry, as shown by this excerpt from the Quran: “Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.” (5:116, Yusif Ali) This directly opposes what Christians claim that Jesus taught in his sermons, and it is clear that both of these positions cannot be true at the same time. To evaluate Jesus considering the perspective of Christians there are three possibilities: he is who he says he is (God), or he is a narcissistic deceiver that lacked all righteousness and honor by claiming to be divine dishonestly, or he is a lunatic that truly believes himself to be God but is not. So the claim that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God cannot be true if what the biblical accounts of Jesus’ teachings are accurate. Thus, the difference in beliefs between Christianity and Islam cannot be reconciled.

There are of course other similarities between the religions that are not diametrically opposed. For instance, both religions refer to an Archangel by the name of Gabriel appearing on separate occasions, in Islam this was at Mohammed’s revelation, and in Christianity at the Annunciation of Jesus’ conception. Both religions also hold Mary the Mother of Jesus in a high regard and claim that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

These similarities are fascinating if nothing else, but the fundamental disagreements about the identity of Jesus prevent the two religions from being able to simultaneously have credibility. (624 Words)

-Ross Woods