What has Jesus got to do with ISIS? A lot

Original article here: http://religionnews.com/2016/10/21/what-has-jesus-got-to-do-with-isis-a-lot/

Militant Islamist fighters ride horses as they take part in a military parade along the streets of Syria's northern Raqqa province

(RNS) This week, the assault on Mosul — the last stronghold of ISIS — began. As a student of religious history, it reminded me of the battles and horrors of first-century Judea.

In 66 A.D. began a series of wars between the Jewish tribes of Judea and the superpower of the day: the Roman empire. Today, in the first century of the second millennium, world events strike a remarkable parallel. Only this time, they involve Muslims. Just as the Zealots in the time of Jesus killed Romans — as well as Jews who disagreed with them, in their bid to re-establish the Israelite kingdom, now we have al-Qaida and the so-called Islamic State group, or ISIS, slaughtering anyone in their attempt to re-establish the Islamic caliphate. But what really underpins such extremism?

Research into the motivating beliefs behind ISIS confirms that its theology is apocalyptic. Its members believe that fighting Western powers will precipitate the appearance of an individual called “The Guided One” (Mahdi) — and the second coming of Jesus. Jesus will then lead ISIS to victory against all the nations of the Earth, apparently. Indeed, its mouthpiece, “Dabiq,is named after the city in Syria that its members believe will precipitate this apocalypse — the city that, incidentally, they just lost to Kurdish fighters.

In 19th-century India, similar beliefs were evoked by clerics to stir up hatred against British rule. In 1899, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, linked the violence and extremism among Muslims of the Wahhabi sect in particular to their belief in the return of Jesus from heaven, as a warrior-messiah who would wage wars for them and establish their political and economic supremacy.

A study by the Pew Center in 2012 showed that more than 50 percent of Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia collectively believe that the appearance of the Mahdi and the subsequent return of Jesus is “imminent.” That suggests ISIS has a powerful recruiting tool at its disposal. Its members are playing on the hopes of religious and spiritual rejuvenation, believed in by millions of Muslims worldwide, while giving it a nationalistic and barbaric twist.

The prophecies ISIS draw on do not originate from the Quran, but from various hadith, or traditions, attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but varying in their reliability. They state that when the second coming of Jesus appears, he would fight against the “Dajjal,” also known as the Antichrist. The Dajjal would be easy to spot, according to the narrations, since he would be known by the donkey he would ride. Various traditions say the donkey would eat fire and breathe smoke, and ride over land, sea and air so fast that “a month’s journey would become a day’s.” The donkey would also have one foot in the East and the other in the West, and would jump from nation to nation. Other traditions describe the donkey as possessing compartments in its belly, into which passengers could climb, and journey with it.

According to ISIS, all this is literal. Jesus himself will return and slay the Dajjal and his donkey, after which Jesus would establish the caliphate. Confused yet? Hasn’t ISIS already established the caliphate? So where is Jesus? Indeed, ISIS grew tired of waiting for its warrior-messiah and the Antichrist’s remarkable donkey, and established the caliphate itself, in a bid to hasten Jesus’ return.

Most ordinary Muslims know of such traditions as a matter of academic knowledge. For others however, these prophecies are deeply significant. Ahmad, who himself claimed to be the second coming of Jesus, explained the prophesies metaphorically. The donkey represented future modes of transportation as a sign of the times; the “deceiver” represented those holding the doctrine that Jesus was the son of God — a belief held by Christians but rejected by the Quran. Ahmad understood such a battle as theological, and denounced the idea of physically fighting non-Muslims as un-Islamic.

Whatever interpretation one takes of Jesus’ life and death, such prophecies must be interpreted by Muslims in accordance with the Quran; particularly the verses that safeguard freedom of conscience. The belief in a future warrior-Messiah who will wage wars for Muslims against non-Muslims is not in line with such Quranic verses.

We may defeat ISIS today, or tomorrow, but unless the beliefs that produce such extremism are eliminated, we will only be pulling out weeds by their stems and not by their roots. Yesterday’s al-Qaida became the ISIS of today and today’s ISIS may refashion itself into yet another monster tomorrow.

Advertisements

Was Muhammad a Man of Peace? A Detailed Response to Nabeel Qureshi

This article first appeared on Patheos, here

With greater scrutiny on Islamic teachings in the wake of terrorism committed by Muslims, a raft of pundits, not least of the Christian evangelical strain, like Nabeel Qureshi, have emerged.

In his latest piece in the Huffington Post, his misrepresentation of Islam follows two steps:

Firstly, he argues that when studying Islam, preference should be given to oral traditions, first written down more than two centuries after the death of the Prophet of Islam, rather than the Qur’an, of which we have copies dated to the life time of the Prophet of Islam himself, such as the Birmingham manuscript. There is perhaps no better endorsement of the Qur’an’s peacefulness than his earnest efforts to ignore it completely. Secondly, having discarded most of the Qur’an, he goes on to focus on oral traditions, yet only selects such oral traditions as present Islam as barbaric and inherently violent.

By ignoring the Qur’an – the earliest window into Islamic history that we have, and then by selectively quoting historical sources, Qureshi white-washes the entire history of seventh century Islam so as to serve the evangelical purpose of portraying Islam as a violent religion and Christianity as its peaceful counterpart.

As regards Qureshi’s first step, the Qur’an refutes him at every turn. Indeed, he ignores the fact that the Qur’an adamantly states that taking up arms is only permissible in self-defense, that hostility is only permitted against aggressors, thatpeace treaties must be kept irrespective of the religion of others, that peace must be preferred over conflict if the aggressor inclines to peace, and that non-Muslims must be treated with kindness and equity if they have do not persecute Muslims for their faith.

Ignoring all this, Qureshi focuses entirely on 9:29, claiming that it is a standing order for Muslims to kill Christians, Jews and others, until they pay money. Why? Because apparently Muslims were hard up due to the loss of trade after the idolatrous tribes who had butchered Muslims for 23 years were expelled from Arabia. This is an astonishing act of historical revisionism, when we consider that the Jews and Christians referred to were those who had actively plotted with the Byzantine empireto attack the Muslims, had attacked Muslims in the Battle of the Trench as well asencouraged other tribes to renounce their peace treaties with Muslims. He also ignores the fact that they had hired soldiers from the tribe of Ghatafan to kill Muslims. Despite all this, the Prophet reaffirmed his treaty they had broken and warned them against future breaches. That the Prophet did not force them to convert nor did he expel them from Arabia despite their persistent hostility, gives the lie to Qureshi’s statement that the Prophet fought them on account of religious differences. If that was the case, then why didn’t the Muslim empire attack the Abyssinian empire on its doorstep? The Abyssinian kingdom, despite being a bastion of Christendom, was not invaded because the kings of Abyssinia did not amass armies against the Muslims, as the Romans and Persians did, but instead welcomed Muslims into their country and permitted them freedom of religion. Indeed, Qureshi would have us believe that Muslims went all the way to Tours in France in a bid to convert Christians and Jews on pain of death, yet forgot to invade the Christian Abyssinian kingdom at their feet.

Qureshi goes on to cite another a-contextual tradition in support of his interpretation of 9:29, in which the Prophet of Islam is quoted to have said that he will fight people until they convert to Islam. He ignores the fact that such statements were made only in relation to those who had waged a war against Muslims, for their faith, butchering innocent people, forcing people from their homes and looting their properties. The Prophet of Islam stated that such people who deserved capital punishment for their crimes against humanity, were only to be given pardon if they became Muslim, as this was the only way that, de-facto, persecution against Muslims would end. Their pardon was an exception, despite their deserving capital punishment. Had Qureshi paid attention to the Qur’an, he would have known that as regards those who have not fought against you on account of your religion and not driven you forth from your homes, Muslims must be kind to them and act equitably (Qur’an 60:9). Indeed, if the Prophet was killing people of different faiths, then why did he not kill or harm Musaylimah, who openly renounced Islam and indeed, formulated a new religion with himself as its prophet, after the revelation of 9:29? Musaylimah did however meet his end after the Prophet’s death, when he raised an army and began butchering Muslims in an attempt to seize power in Arabia.

Therein lies the rub: in his second step, Qureshi conveniently ignores or omits all evidence demonstrating that the individuals or groups against whom the Prophet of Islam fought, always instigated war against him first and that he was always the instigator of peace treaties.

Using this technique, Qureshi’s misrepresentation reaches astonishing heights. He claims that the Prophet of Islam invoked curses on others, forgetting that all prophets of God, including Jesus, prophesy an evil end for their opponents. He claims the Prophet assassinated Ka’b Bin Ashraf, ignoring the fact that Ka’b instigated the tribes of Mecca to wage war against Muslims and himself tried to murder the Prophet of Islam. He claims that the Prophet encouraged deceit to kill Ka’b, ignoring that the earliest and most authoritative traditions make no mention of this. He claims the Prophet assassinated Abu Rafi in his sleep, ignoring the fact that Abu Rafi was an arms dealer, supplying weapons to tribes actively killing Muslims for their faith. He claims that the Prophet of Islam had his enemies’ eyes gouged out as a punishment, ignoring the fact that the earliest tradition sources deny that he blinded anyone and that they were not simply his “enemies” as Qureshi misrepresents, but criminals who had themselves gouged out the eyes of innocent people in addition to robbing, killing and decapitating civilians and raping women. He further claims that the Prophet of Islam ordered the killing of an entire Jewish tribe’s male population, despite the fact that this was not ordered by him but by another who was appointed by the Jewish tribe themselves as an arbiter, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, who had judged in accordance with the Jewish teachings, not Islamic teachings, against the tribe, for their treachery against the Muslims in wartime. He further omits that the Prophet granted security to any of the Jewish men who sought it, and protected them from being killed. He claims further that the Prophet of Islam led armies against unarmed cities, referring to the city of Khaybar, which was one of the most heavily fortified and armed cities in Arabia and which has already been spoken of as attacking the Muslims at the battle of the Trench and encouraging other tribes to renounce peace treaties with Muslims.

The above are a few examples of how Qureshi white-washes history. Given that such facts have been presented to him time and time again, and yet he continues to misrepresent these events so as to serve his own evangelical ends, indicates that it is not ignorance but dishonesty that drives him.

In my last article, I challenged Qureshi to provide a statement from the Bible that is as clear as this Qur’anic one, teaching the importance of maintaining peace treaties, as well as on the fact that fighting is only permitted as self-defence. He has failed to provide anything, indicating that he has no reply. The reality is that Islam, being a complete guidance, provides teachings on when the fight for freedom is legitimate. Those of other faiths, especially Christianity, have had to look outside their religion for guidance on when to fight and how to behave in wartime, since neither Jesus nor any of his immediate successors had to go to war. The Prophet of Islam however provided guidance on all aspects of life, since he was confronted with both times of peace and times of war.

Qureshi and others like him who deliberately spread such misinformation about Islam are the best allies of terrorists like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Misinformed Muslims, seeing extremists on one hand and Christian evangelicals posing as historians of early Islam on the other, are led to the wrong conclusion that Islam is a religion of violence. Qureshi’s false argumentation leads to a self-fulfilling cycle of extremism where Islam is misrepresented, leading to further radicalisation and further terrorism, resulting in the further misrepresentation of Islam.

Then again, that might just be precisely what he wants.