Religion and Relativism

I have been engaged recently in a discussion of the equality of religions.  Are they equal in all respects, and if not, why not?  During a discussion on whether Islam, Judiasm and Christianity were of equal footing regarding levels of violence, it was claimed that Christians, Jews and Judeo-Christian doctrine was just as repressive as Islamic doctrine, therefore to say that one was bad meant that one had to apply that to all religions across the board.  I awlays try, gently to point to the main difference: that Islamic doctrine, as defined today and practiced by some Muslims demands the conversion, subjugation or death for non-Muslims, but there is no equivalent demand in Christianity.

My dialogue fell on deaf ears, the listener refusing to accept that this was so, and pointed out the example of Tim McVeigh as if that was the end of his argument.  It was then I wanted to go back and read what some experts have said about this dialectic conversation. 

This is from Raymond Ibrahim, author of "The Al-Qaeda Reader" and a scholar of Islam of the finest order.  I have posted other pieces from him here before, this is especially prescient with all that has been happening to Christians in the Middle East in recent history.  His words need to be understood by those who continually claim that all religions are equal, and should be treated as such.


From The Middle East Quarterly Summer/2009

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

by Raymond Ibrahim

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and frustration—ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social factors—that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more unquestioned.

Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counseled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.

But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?

Read it all