Thinking Rationally about Religion and Violence

Teaching high school kids how to think and do research sometimes drove me to despair. Not because they didn't get it, but because sometimes they did. And then I look at how "successful" thinkers in the Media and often even Academy argue in public, and wondered if I was wasting my time. 

Maybe, after all, sloppy use of key terms, broad generalizations based on anecdotal and impressionistic "evidence," free employment of logical fallacies, and in short, shoddy reasoning that makes emotional appeals to dupes, is how to make a name for yourself and grab your share of the world's approval and financial renumeration. Maybe I was setting kids up to fail by teaching them how to think and argue rationally. 

Such, at least, was my gloomy reflection upon reading Deidre McPhillip's "Religion Needs a Savior: Most people think religion is the root cause of the world's problems, according to an international study," on the US News website. (And a discussion linked to that article at a secularist website that promotes the "future of reasoning.") 

I told students that one of the first things they needed to do to make a sensible argument, was to define key terms. 

So what is "religion," used twice in the headline alone, that multi-tasking pest which allegedly causes most the world's problems? The term is famously tricky. Sociologist Peter Berger divided definitions of “religion” into two kinds: substantive, which focus on the content of belief, and functional, which key in on the use society makes religion. For instance, you can define religion as "Belief in God or supernatural powers," or as "The overarching ideology which a group of people take as fundamental in establishing rules of behavior." (Or Paul Tillich's simpler "ultimate concern," to give another "functional" example. The sociologist Emile Durkheim was probably the most famous "functional" theorist.) 

People ignore this distinction all the time, though it is critical. Secular ideologies often qualify as “religions” under functional definitions. This makes skeptics uncomfortable, because they want to stigmatize “religious” people as inherently irrational, unlike themselves. Functional definitions level the playing field, reminding us that the same psychological and social forces work on us all, whatever we think about God. 

But an even more important, and obvious, distinction begged by the title of this piece is "Which religion?" As everyone knows, including those taking the survey, some Muslims have behaved badly of late. (I finally post this after Hamas' recent murderous exploits were celebrated widely.) 

Yes, so have some Christians, especially if you go back to the Inquisition -- why did you think of that? Because both Christianity and Islam are “Abrahamic religions“ we are told. 

So it does not even cross the skeptic’s mind that, “Yes, but atheists murdered one hundred million innocent people during our grandparents’ life-times." That is the advantage of implicitly defining religion to exclude their own ideology: they need not be hoist with their own petards. 

Asking if "religion" has done the world harm is misleading not only because "religion" is poorly-defined, but also because either sort of definition covers very different things. A fallacy of composition is committed. It is unfair to ask folk about "religion in general" when they invariably have particular religions in mind. 

"Are Lutheran Brethren the root cause of the world's problems?" No? How about Communism? Capitalism? Technology? 

"Is Islam the cause of most of the world's problems?” 

That question won’t fly in Lahore, or else stones will. Go ask police officers in Beijing if the Communist Party has messed up the country, and with luck, you’ll soon be on a flight home. 

And what does "most of the world's problems" mean? 

Take out a scratch pad and list a few serious ones: 

(a) Death.

(b) Cancer.

(c) War.

(d) Mosquitoes and the diseases they bring.

(e) Ticks and the diseases they carry.

(f) Traffic jams.

(g) Bureaucrats.

(h) The threat of nuclear weapons.

(i) The rise of Artificial Intelligence.

(j) Unmelodic music in grocery stores.

(k) Ugly public art.

Your list may differ. But the problem with the article’s title should be obvious. Clearly, most big problems are not caused by religions, however you define the word. (Unless you count Satan’s temptation to “be as gods, eat the apple” as a “religion.”)

In China, where few of the 1.4 billion citizens has a religion in the sense of belief in supernatural beings, and the public, observable effect of Buddhism and Christianity is negligible (while Islam is suppressed even more heavily), I suspect "dropping my I phone on the sidewalk" would rank higher as a source of heartache. (Never mind "unrequited love" “bad air” or "getting fired.")

So why might people answer "yes" to such an inane question as “Is religion the root cause of the world’s troubles?”

Because polls are intended to let people vent, not think. And who are respondents venting at? Not at themselves, of course. At people of other religions.

So much for “the future of reasoning.”

Anecdotal Arguments Against Faith, plus "Expert" Opinions

The contents of the article exhibit do little more to reassure one that post-religious humanity will think clearly or honestly.

"RAISED AS A conservative, Sunni Muslim girl in Canada, Yasmine Mohammed said she was taught to always be in fight mode. 'The first thing Islam teaches you is to not question, but follow,' she says. And what she had to follow was a 'Muslim supremacy ideology' that called for violence against anyone who fell out of line and full armies prepared to join the fight when the caliphate was to rise. "Systematic suppression of critical thinking is what makes Muslims ripe to join groups like the Islamic State group or become suicide bombers without questioning the motives of their directives, she says."

Not to defend Islam, of which I am not fond, but let us not ignore the fact that, as numerous anthropologists affirm, human nature is fundamentally tribal.

And does critical thinking need to be suppressed, or developed?  If it came naturally, I'd have to seek employment elsewhere. And when it comes to job security, the US News article is reassuring. 

"As a radical sect of Buddhist nationalists persecute the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wages on and a film challenging the Orthodox Church spurs violent protests in Russia, it seems that asserting sovereignty is the only thing the world's religions can agree on today." 

Take this line of “reasoning,” for instance. Does the author seriously wish to extrapolate from three instances in which groups of "religious" people quarrel (though Israel is one of the least "religious" countries in the world) to argue that there is some sort of general agreement among "the world's religions" to . . . what? "Assert sovereignty?” Claim power over others?

Aristotle pointed out that "Man is a political creature.” Since politics means assertion of power, clearly the use of power is a universal human (also lupine) characteristic.

So we should generalize from three instances to 6 billion people, while implicitly exempting the "non-religious" billion or two people from that generalization? Never mind the power games that New Atheists play among themselves? Or the fratricidal history of Marxism?

My point, of course, is not that atheists are either more or less violent than Shiite Muslims. It is that McPhillip has deceived herself into thinking she has made a rational argument, when she has not come within a country mile of a clear thought. 

But on she treks: 

"In a recent Best Countries survey of more than 21,000 people from all regions of the world, the majority of respondents identified religion as the ‘primary source of most global conflict today.’ Spiritual beliefs create an inherent “us vs. them" scenario, experts say."

Which experts say that? What are they expert in?

Sports and politics also create "inherent 'us vs them' scenarios. Indeed, every assertion of truth, every scientific or historical or psychological claim, every basketball tossed into the air, also creates an "us vs them:” those for, and those against. Society is constantly fracturing along the fault lines of a billion assertions. Any claim "A" immediately creates a default "non-A" at the other end of the court. Ever line in the sand, saying "This is ours" (Rouseau) creates potential for conflict. 

McPhillip's borrowed "insight“ is thus simultaneously both trivial and earth-shaking: if she applied the same standard to ideas in general, she would have to portray them all as dangerous.  (And maybe they are, for her.)

"’When societies shatter, they generally shatter along tribal lines. People are seeing themselves as irretrievably different from their neighbors,’ says Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher who has published books on Islam and the conflict between religion and science."

The movement Harris briefly helped lead has also shattered along tribal lines. The website Sam Harris and the Future of Reason is a site largely for tribal warfare between atheists who hold differing political opinions.

That's one reason I find it interesting. If everyone offered the same views about the world, it would make me wonder if I were trapped in the world of 1984 or the planet in Madeleine L’Engle where children all bounce their balls simultaneously.

Humans are tribal. Welcome to Anthropology 101.

"The divisions created by religion are deeper and potentially more harmful than those formed through other aspects of identity such as race, nationality or political affiliations because they confront individuals with differing opinions on the ultimate purpose of life, experts say. And more than 80 percent of those surveyed said that religious beliefs guide a person's behavior."

Here come those ”experts" again. Which experts, besides the New Atheist Sam Harris? What are their exact words? What evidence do they offer to back up their opinions?

I'm an expert in "religion." I don't hear my fellow historians, theologians, or students of comparative religion, saying that religion is more dangerous than politics or nuclear physics, for examples.

Indeed, the argument given so far sounds like something a crack-pot psychologist dabbling in comparative religion or intellectual history might say. The impact of ideas in the collective is not a question that can be answered theoretically. (Notice the fudge word "potentially," which is a concession that the author cannot back her point up with solid empirical evidence.)

If you have proof that "religious" people (by whatever definition) are more violent, cruel or mean than people who lack any beliefs or purpose in life, please offer that evidence, so we can crunch the data! 

Or how about if we just cite Swami Sam like good faith-heads? 

"Religion often becomes the master variable," Harris says. "It provides a unique reward structure. If you believe that the thoughts you harbor in this life and the doctrines you adhere to spell the difference between an eternity spent in fire or one spent on the right hand of God, that raises the stakes beyond any other reward structure on earth."

Still just one "expert," Sam Harris (whose expertise lies in cognitive science, not religion), offering armchair theorizing. Odd, if “experts" in general are making this point, that she keeps on citing the same fairly young scholar, whose academic work lay in a field remote indeed from the claim supposedly being supported.

"Tribal tendencies are natural for humans who need groups and community to survive. But the driving forces behind especially alienating, fundamentalist beliefs are a combination of nature and nurture, experts say. 'Any beliefs that concern the sacred are integral to people’s identities,” says Andrew Tix, a psychology professor at Normandale Community College whose nationally recognized research focuses on religion and spirituality. ‘People differ in how much they’re threatened when the sacred is brought into question.’

Maybe we should start a drinking game: bottoms up when the word "expert" is used.

This expert turns out to be a young instructor, not professor, at a community college. 

He does hold a PhD in psychology. But these two comments hardly seem to require one to issue. Your most sacred beliefs are part of who you are! (Bet you didn't know that, Irish Catholics! Or Iranian Shiites! Or Icelandic Wiccans!) And some people get more upset than others when you tell them their religion is wrong! 

Remember, this is expertise talking, so don’t laugh!

"He points to psychology’s Big Five theory in which openness to experience is one of five key personality traits that is influenced by genetics and shaped by experiences. Some people have found ways to 'hold their beliefs more lightly and with a sense of mystery,' he says. They would score high on ‘openness,’ while fundamentalists who hold their beliefs with heavy conviction would more likely score low."

You may want to sit down for these “heavy” revelations. People who are convinced about what they believe, really believe it.

Ponder the implications: if you firmly believe that the Earth goes around the Sun, you will score low in measurements of how open you are to changing your mind to thinking both sun and earth circle the moon. Profound, no? 

But the experts have even more such wisdom to impart. 

"Religious communities teach different ways of responding to criticism of their identity, Tix says, but it comes down to the notion of threatened egotism. ‘The stronger a person’s convictions in their identity – of which religion is often a key part – the more likely they are to be violent when their identity is threatened.’”

You may find it hard to keep up with the flow of earth-shattering profundity. But what this seems to mean is, if you don't care much about your religion, you probably won't lose your cool if someone trashes it.

Are we going too fast?

Also, if you don't care about your country, you probably won't care if someone invades it. If no one cared about anything -- no country to die for, and no religion, too -- why just imagine!

So I am not sure if our experts obtained this vast store of expertise from their PhD studies, or from an old Beatles song. Either way, we soldier on:

"The Muslim identity surrounding Mohammed in Canada's British Columbia was strong. She was beaten for not memorizing the Koran and married to a member of al-Qaida as a teenager . . . But after taking a religion course at college, Mohammed said the unease she had always felt with what she was told to believe finally started to take shape. In voicing her newfound convictions to her family, she immediately became part of ‘them’ instead of ‘us.’ The fight turned against her. She says her family disowned her and threatened to have her killed. She fled to different parts of Canada, changed her and her child’s names and says she feels lucky the death threat has so far only been a threat."

A sad story, indeed.

"It is only in comparison with modern Islam that modern Christianity and other religions appear more benign, says Sam Harris, who is very publicly atheist. 'It’s more than inconvenient that these old [religious] books support things like slavery and the killing of women who are not virgins on their wedding night,' he says. 'None of these books is the best we have on anything we care about. All could be improved with editing, and that should banish any notion that they are the product of omniscience.'” 

I have seen attempts to "improve" the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. (Cough, cough.)

But we seem to be straying off the path. Wasn’t someone going to make the case that religion is the root of all evil? The title of the piece was "Religion Needs a Savior: Most people think religion is the root cause of the world's problems, according to an international study."

Nope!  It turns out that this title is a lie. The actual question asked was not about "the world's problems" in general. Rather it asked "What's the primary source of most global conflict today?"

Obviously, "problems" is a vastly broader set of issues than "conflicts," especially if you add the adjective "global," then the chronological modifier, "today."

Anyone who doesn't recognize how dishonest it is to conflate these two, shouldn't stand within ten miles of a keyboard. It is like asking people, "What is the most difficult thing about eating a pineapple?" Then when they say, "Pealing off that hard, greenish-yellow skin," you announce, as your headline, "Most people object to mixed skin colors!"

If one were to focus on the present moment in history, Islam is, arguably, the source of most civilizational friction. One could also make a case for the Woke ideology. Look a few years into the past, and it was communism. Look into the future, and the atheist neo-Confucianism of China looms on the horizon.

But death, taxes, cancer, and traffic are all arguably bigger problems for most people. And most religions don't cause much fuss, even those that are passionately believed (what Stark called “high tension” faiths.)

"But religion is not going away."

And if it did, we wouldn't know, since you haven't defined it yet.

"Estimates from Pew Research Center predict that the worldwide population of religiously unaffiliated people will shrink from about 16 percent in 2010 to 13 percent in 2050. In the same time frame, the share of Muslims is predicted to grow from 23 percent to 30 percent of the world’s population."

Pew Research is an expert on what people think in the present, not the future. We have no idea whether there will even be any human beings 27 years from now, let alone what they will believe. A LITTLE intellectual humility on how our grandkids will identity is advisable.

Few predicted the sudden growth of Christianity in China. In recent years, a phenomenon never seen before has occurred in the Muslim world, too -- millions converting to Christ. But in some other countries, the church has suffered sudden reversals.

What path people follow in the future, is up to them, and predicated on numerous variables, many of which themselves are complex or invisible to any human or computer prognosticator. But just a bit more from “experts” before we (finally, yes, sorry) close:

"EXPERTS agree that finding a human connection at some level can help build empathy and bridge the gap between conflicting ideologies and identities. 'In many Muslim-majority nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, religion is directly tied to national policy and politics.' 

As is atheist ideology in China, and Woke ideology in California. 

"For 18 years, the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, founded by Douglas Johnston, has facilitated faith-based dialogue to find commonalities in these conflicting sides. ‘What you’re doing is shifting accountability from an ideology or political movement to god. If you do that, you tend to find that people behave nicer,' Johnston says. 'It’s incumbent upon all of us to search our beliefs, our instincts and the rest of it and do what we can to be agents of reconciliation.'”

This quote seems to contradict everything that went before it. "Religion" was the shark in the pool. Now political ideology becomes the real danger, while faith in God can make us kinder and gentler.

Of course, not all religions, especially defined functionally, appeal to God. John Hick tried to get around this by describing a "Real" that is the truth behind surface manifestations in all religions. One eastern critic pointed out that Hick's "Real" was implicitly theistic, while many theists found it rather un-Real. So Hick's attempt to satisfy everyone ended by satisfying almost no one, as such ghostly universalisms usually do.

But I think Johnston is closer to the truth than the other "experts" McPhillip has cited. Of course people can appeal to "Got Mitt Uns" to commit tribal cruelties. Yet anyone who recognizes the image of God on his neighbor, and who hears Jesus tell him that all morality and prophetic writings are summed up in "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself," cannot go full tribal, then look God in the eye.

I just read part of a doctoral dissertation by an orthodox Jew who noted that the Miao people in China had been fighting the Han people, and losing, since forever. Their conversion to Christianity, he noticed, allowed some Miao to begin to forgive the Han. And his own faith in God seemed to give him something in common with evangelical missionaries and Chinese minorities alike.

So this article fails on all fronts. Religions are complex, varied, and contradictory as the humans they strive to direct. Simple-minded a priori generalizations, inspired by abstract psychological theories and absent careful empirical research discretely analyzed and reported, don't tell us anything. Neither do answers to loaded questions.  

And really, kids, you need to define your terms clearly, make due concessions, quote qualified authorities while recognizing the limits of their expertise, look at the big picture not just a few convenient facts, and think critically about your thesis.  

Which, after all, may be worth learning to do, after all.  

Think critically about religion, and it may not help you get published or elected to office.  But as Kipling put it, do all that, and "You'll be a man, my son." 

Comparing Scriptures on Women: 19 criteria

Let us summarize what we learn by reading what sacred Scriptures of various religions have to say directly about women.  This will also furnish a template for future analysis. 

A Wind in the House of Islam

I am presently reading a book called A Wind in the House of Islam. The book describes something new in the world: after 13 centuries without any large groups of Muslims turning to Christ (aside from two towards the very end), in recent years dozens such movements have sprung up, in all parts of the Muslim world.

One important fact I have learned from this book, is that the Fulfillment Model of how Christianity relates to world traditions, which I developed for my doctorate and in some of my books, also applies to Islam and even the Quran. I resisted that conclusion until this morning. How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: the Inside Story, for instance, focused on Hebrew, Greek, Norse, Indian, and Chinese traditions. I ignored Islam because: (a) Mohammed was, in my view (still) an unusually bad man; (b) he wrote the Quran, whatever Muslims claim; (c) it's not a very good book, sorry again Muslims; (d) if the Quran can lead people to Christ, why hasn't it?

But it turns out that it is doing just that, right now:

"First we show them from the Quran that only Isa al-Masih is the Savior, and then we baptize them. Then we give them the Bible and we disciple them. Over time, they move away from the Quran and into the Bible, though they continue to use the Quran to bring other Muslims to faith in Isa."

That's from a "Muslim" leader in Bangladesh, who himself became a Christian when someone asked him why he was reading the Koran in Arabic without understanding it, and he began to read what it really said -- more than he dreamed about Jesus.

So I'm going to have to disagree with my friend Don Richardson on this. I still think Mohammed was a bum, and the Quran isn't much of a book, as holy scriptures go. But apparently God is (if I can put it this way) more clever than I gave Him credit! It seems He has booby-trapped even a book of heresy to point true seekers to His Son.

Anyway, interesting book, you might like it. Probably better not let too many ISIS terrorists get ahold of the book, though.

Yes, Randal Rauser, Christians Should Fear Islam

But first, we should fear misunderstanding one another.  So let us begin by trying to figure out what we are talking about when we use the word "Islam."


Intro: Define Religions to Avoid Confusion 

Atheists and believers often talk past one another because they hold different notions of what the word "religion" means.  Some people (often skeptics) assume what sociologist Peter Berger called a "substantive" definition of the word ("Religion is a belief in supernatural beings"), while others (often believers) prefer a "functional" definition ("Religion is a person's 'ultimate concern.'").   Either sort of definition is defensible.  But I suspect Secular Humanists prefer substantive definitions because that lets their own beliefs off the hook.  Even though Secular Humanism and Marxism often look, sound, smell, and act like "religions," by invoking "saints" and "holy books" and oppressing competitors, by defining themselves as not having any "religion," humanists can pretend to stand above "religion" and critique other peoples' beliefs objectively, as for instance John Loftus pretends to do with his Outsider Test for Faith, even if they fight like wolves to protect their own views.

Liberals and conservatives have a different way of talking past one another.  And that has to do with how we define, not religion in general, but particular religions, including Islam.  Since Randal Rauser is a "liberal" (I hope he doesn't mind the term), and I am a conservative (that's how I see myself), it helps to consider the different ways that these two schools define particular religions before we wade into the question, "Should we fear Islam?"

People often define specific religions in three ways: (1) by the personality and teachings of a faith's founder (s); (2) by the written or oral canon produced by early believers; and / or (3) by broad tradition as it has developed in the centuries or millennia since that religion first burst on the scene.   

Conservatives tend to define religions by the first two, founders and texts.  Thus, a conservative might say that a Christian is a follower of Jesus, or someone who reads and obeys the Holy Bible, which tells the way to salvation.  A Muslim is one who is inspired by the life, teachings, and example of the Prophet Mohammed, or by reading (or hearing) of the Holy Quran (along perhaps with the earliest and most reliable hadith).  

Liberals, by contrast, focus (if one can use that word for their more scattered approach) on evolving tradition.  Liberals have been known to describe the United States Constitution as a "living document," which we interpret from our growing life experiences.  In the same way, given time, imagination, and the selective pressures of different cultural environments, Christianity, Buddhism or Islam may evolve in all kinds of directions .  Buddhism became militaristic among the Samarai class in Japan, turned to occult orgies ("consort practice") among the Tibetan elite, became a school of nature art, a New Age fad for American filmmakers, or returned to its quietest roots in hundreds of caves and temples scattered around Asia.  I have sometimes wondered if Nazism would have ultimately have developed a pacifist wing, had it survived.

When defining a religion, which of these definitions should we focus on?  Again, any can be defended.  Language is plastic, and in a sense, words really can mean anything you like -- so long as you make yourself clear.   

But to be clear, you must do two things.  (1) First, make sure your definition is the same as that of the person you're talking with.  If you say, "Buddhism is a great religion," a conservative may hear, "Buddha was a great teacher and what he said, as preserved in the earliest sutras, is largely true," while a liberal may hear you say, "Buddhist traditions as they spread from India to Central Asia and the Far East contributed richly to the tapestry of Far Eastern literature, art, science, and cuisine."  Then the liberal and the conservative often get into a loud argument without realizing that they're talking about two completely different things. 

But which definition should one choose?  Maybe that depends, in part, not just upon one's personal preference, but also on the nature of a particular faith.  So one must also ask, (2) "Does the kind of definition I like fit this particular religion?"  Some faiths are more fixed in nature, like an animal with a shell or skeleton, while others are squishier and more elastic, like a jelly-fish.  Religions with a high view of revealed scripture may evolve to fit new environmental conditions (which is what liberals expect and even hope for), yet also retain a stronger core set of beliefs, which change much less than those of religions that lack a fixed canon (written or oral), or in which you can pick and choose from thousands of "sacred" scriptures a la carte.  

Keep those two points in mind, as you read a piece my friend Randal Rauser posted on November 21st, "Should Christians Be Afraid of Islam?"  He thinks "no."  I think "yes."  I think the problem with Rauser's answer in large part derives from a problematic definition of "Islam," which leans liberal, but ultimately equivocates between liberal and conservative definitions.  In Part II, I'll analyze specific points marked and lettered in Part I, attempting to clarify some of the usual confusion.  Then I will attempt to answer Rauser's question as a whole in Part III. 

I. Rauser's Argument: "No, We Need Not Fear Islam"

In my review for God’s not Dead 2 I pointed out that the religion currently under greatest threat in the United States is not Christianity.  (a) Rather, it is Islam.

That claim received a response from readers both in the discussion thread and via email who argued that Islam is a threat. When the concern was initially raised by Walter I replied as follows:

“Islam, like any religion, is subject to multiple interpretations of the relationship between the religious community and the state. (b) The kind of Islam you describe as a concern has its Christian equivalent in contemporary Christian dominionism as well as in many historic forms of Christendom.”

Another reader, VicqRuiz, countered my response as follows:

“If the segment of Islam which believes in a theocratic state under shari’a was as small relative to all of Islam as the dominionist movement is relative to all of Christianity, I would agree that Islam is something which we have no need to beware.”

I then offered this reply:

“It is true that the relative size and strength of the theocratic wing of Islam is currently greater than the theocratic wing of Christianity. But it simply doesn’t follow that fear of the theocratic wing of Islam should thereby transfer to fear of Islam simpliciter. (c) That’s a non sequitur.”

But VicqRuiz was undaunted as he then replied:

“What argues against your response, Randal, is the dearth of majority Islamic countries in which the theocratic wing of Islam is not firmly entrenched in power.”

In fact, that doesn’t argue against my response. On the contrary, it is another non sequitur. So here is my explanation of why folks shouldn’t be afraid of Islam or believe that Islam per se represents an essential threat to western society.

Muslim majority countries today very much parallel pre-Enlightenment Christian majority countries in the West. (d) I am using the term “Enlightenment” here to refer to a set of cultural, scientific, philosophical, political, and economic forces in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which gave rise to the hallmarks of western capitalist, democratic, and religiously tolerant pluralist society. (e) 

Let’s begin with this observation: in key respects religious life in England in 1610 was much closer to religious life in contemporary Saudi Arabia than contemporary England. For example, if you lived in England in 1610 you could be jailed for being a non-conformist (i.e. for refusing to conform to the Church of England’s form of worship). And if you failed to attend church for an extended period, you could be called before the civil magistrate where you could be fined, imprisoned or worse. (Just consider what happened to Thomas Helwys who had the temerity to write King James I at this time to request religious toleration for his fellow Baptists.)

But over the next two centuries, western Christendom began to break down as a result of many forces including the continued fracturing of religious consensus and the growth of religious, political and economic conflict (e.g. Thirty Years War); the continued growth of the significance of the secular sphere in natural science (e.g. Galileo, Newton, Darwin) and economics (e.g. Adam Smith), the rise of philosophical skepticism (e.g. Hume, Kant), the democratizing force of politics (the French and American revolutions) and popular revivalist religion (in Britain and North America especially). (f) 

All these forces amounted to an extended assault of cannon fire on the edifice of western Christendom. But Christianity didn’t die as a result. Indeed, many commentators would argue that it was freed from the constraints of Christendom as it adapted to the new reality of pluralism, free market capitalism, democracy, science, and the ongoing forces of secularization. (g) 

Most Muslim-majority countries have not yet grappled directly with these same forces of Enlightenment. Consequently, many of the values now taken for granted in the West like religious tolerance, free markets, and democracy are not embraced in large parts of the Muslim-majority world. And in the countries where the influence of the West is most present (e.g. Turkey, Iran, Egypt) one can also see the most visible conflicts.

So here’s the lesson to draw: it is simply wrong to think that this current clash of civilizations is a clash with Islam simpliciter just like it is wrong to think that the earlier clash with Christendom was a clash with Christianity simpliciter. (h) Consequently, instead of encouraging non-Muslims to fear Islam we should be encouraging Muslims to engage with the same forces (pluralism, capitalism, democracy, etc.) that wrought change in Christendom. (i) 

And one more thing. One should not assume that the Enlightenment forces which wrought these radical changes in Christendom were and are all secular. On the contrary, as several scholars have argued, many of these forces are in fact sourced ultimately within the Judeo-Christian tradition. (See for example, Nicholas Wolterstorff’s account of justice and human rights.) Likewise, the most effective reform of Islam will be that which engages not only in a dialogue with external factors, but also in a careful and creative ressourcement of the Muslim tradition itself. (j)

II. Initial Analysis

Now let us analyze the ten points (a-j) marked above, in light of our talk about definitions above, and see if any confusion has crept into Rauser's typically well-spoken analysis.  

(a)  "The religion currently under greatest threat in the United States is not Christianity."  What sort of "threat" is Rauser talking about?  In the review which he cites, Rauser appeals to alleged "persecution" of Muslims in America, but doesn't give any details.  His concerns seem more oriented towards possible future persecutions of some sort: 

To note some examples, this past week President-elect Donald Trump chose Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor, even though Flynn has insisted that Americans should be afraid of Islam (not Islamic radicalism, but Islam itself) and further that Islam is really a political ideology rather than a religion. (This latter claim is particularly troubling as it sets the stage for challenging the religious freedom currently granted to Muslims.)

This whole paragraph is about definitions.  Is Islam a "political ideology," and not a "religion?"  Or at least a religion in which politics is more central than, say, Buddhism or Taoism?  Should we believe what Flynn or Rauser tell us about the relationship between piety and politics in Islam?

One might wish Rauser had directly quoted Flynn here.  I have heard Flynn speak on the radio, and he did not strike me as particularly careful or profound in his use of his words.  But anyway, the "threat" which Rauser sniffs out here seems extremely faint -- it does not sound as if Flynn actually proposed taking away, or even "challenging" the freedom of Muslims.  Even if Islam were a political ideology and not a religion at all, isn't political expression also protected speak in the United States?  Furthermore, even if Flynn did think Islam was overly political, and that obnoxious ideologies should be suppressed (though that is not mentioned here), he does not have dictatorial powers, just the future president's ear on some matters.

So the dangers for Muslims in America that Rauser refers to here seem vague and implicit, even watered down over several generations, like chemicals in a homeopathic solution.

By contrast, non-Muslims in America face a more concrete danger: getting killed by Islamic terrorists.

Over the past 20 years, over three thousand Americans have been killed in America by terrorists, the vast majority by Muslim terrorists.

May there not be more to fear in the devil of terrorism that we know, and that has scorched thousands of American citizens already, than in whatever minor hobgoblins may emerge from the vapor of General Flynn's clumsily-constructed public utterances?   

(b) “Islam, like any religion, is subject to multiple interpretations of the relationship between the religious community and the state."  

"Multiple interpretations" is a bit of a scholarly cliche.  Human beings being endlessly complex creatures, almost every event in history is "subject to multiple interpretations," especially since we hardly even know what our own motives are, at times.

But consider this comment in light of my second warning above.  Yes, Islam evolves, as do all beliefs, and "liberals" can therefore rightly point to numerous differing manifestations of a faith that has been evolving for more than a millennium.  But it also seems that Islam generally maintains a far more stable core of beliefs than do, say, Buddhism or Hinduism.  Islam is constrained from too quick or radical change by the person, example, and canonical teachings of Mohammed, and by belief that God has authored the Koran word for word.  These beliefs seem to lend Islam far more stability than religions based in more amorphous sets of teachings.  

And in fact, Mohammed was leader of both the religious community and the Arab state, as were caliphs who followed in his footsteps for centuries after his time.  Mohammed issued political rulings, waged war, took in a fixed percentage of booty from raids on neighboring tribes as taxes, and punished personal enemies by wielding political power.  The union between politics and religion that he instituted is fixed in Islamic law as normative, since Mohammed is considered the ideal man.  Maybe some Muslims can ignore later Islamic rulings.  But the Koran is even more authoritative in Islam than the Bible in Christianity, and far bolder in what it says about use of political power.  Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was an authoritarian political leader.  So one may indeed find multiple interpretations of how religion and politics meet in Islam, but the most successful ones must come to grips with the example of Mohammed, the political leader and yes, highly successful tyrant and warrior.  

(c) “It is true that the relative size and strength of the theocratic wing of Islam is currently greater than the theocratic wing of Christianity.  But it simply doesn’t follow that fear of the theocratic wing of Islam should thereby transfer to fear of Islam simpliciter. 

Again we return to definitions.  What does Randal mean by "Islam simpliciter?"

If we define Islam by the example of Mohammed and the writings that tell of his life, one might argue that theocracy is not a "wing" of Islam but the whole bird, aside from a few loose tail feathers.

Can one even point to some "Islam simpliciter" that was not already theocratic?  I doubt that history reveals any such thing: I don't find it in the Koran, I don't find it in Maxine Rodinson, in Bernard Lewis, or even in John Esposito or Karen Armstrong.

The Gospels do not confront us with an analogous difficulty.  Jesus was neither a political leader, nor even politically demanding: "My kingdom is not of this world" disavows political ambition pretty clearly.  When Jesus' disciples left, he did not try to retain them, nor did he ever hold a weapon in his hands, or ask that any of his followers wield them against his critics.  

If we define Islam according to the example and teachings of Mohammed, as made normative in the Koran, then Islam is not a religion with a "theocratic wing," it is a theocratic religion with a democratic fringe.  We may hope that liberals within Islam will cause their religion to evolve away from its roots, but then that would be away from "Islam simpliciter."  And one might say that Rauser also fears that, which is why he hopes that Islam will, in fact, evolve, and why he fails to cite any ancient Islamic teachings or normative examples which modern Islam can appeal to to reform.

The problem is, if you don't define "Islam" by its founder or sacred text, you can't really talk about "Islam simpliciter" or "Islam per se," but only, "one late and marginal interpretation of Islam that I think would be socially useful."  That's fine, in liberal circles, or as a Hollywood version of Buddhism.  But Muslims are likely to feel that you are asking them to jump ship and become something entirely different.     

(d) Muslim majority countries today very much parallel pre-Enlightenment Christian majority countries in the West. 

I wonder.  Were there any "Pre-Enlightenment Christian majority countries in the West?"  Rodney Stark argues that the number of "Christians" passed the 50% mark in Rome during the 4th Century, but also that from that point on, sincere Christians again became a minority.  

Anyway, if as Rauser claims one can find similarities between "pre-Enlightenment" Europe and modern Islam, what would be the cause of those similarities?

Medieval "Christianity" had been altered from its original state by three outside influences: (a) Greco-Roman imperial faith; (b) Germanic faith; and (c) Islam itself, which conquered half of "Christendom" and inspired a reaction, including the concept of "holy war."  (Paul Tillich is good on this topic.)  So one reason Medieval Christianity resembled modern Islam to the extent that it did, may be that Christendom had been influenced by Islam.  After all, Islam had conquered half of Christendom.  When threatened by a stronger rival, religions often adopt what they perceive as that rival's strengths in order to compete.  Christianity thus moved away from its roots in the teachings and life of Jesus, first by adopting Roman power and customs, then German superstitions and love of war, and then the attitude towards slavery and "holy war" that its more powerful competitor to the south modeled.

If that is so, a Reformation or even Enlightenment in Europe may have led Christians away from Islam, back to the roots of the Gospel -- to the model Jesus provided.  But Mohammed provided a completely different model.  As early as the 7th Century, John of Damascus recognized as typical of Islam some of the traits we decry in Islam today.

The problem with Islam may be that it has already reformed, and that "Islamic reform" and the desire to return to "simply Islam" is what produced Saudi Arabia, modern Iran, and the Taliban.  If Mohammed was the ideal man, and the ideal man married a 9-year-old, shouldn't we lower the age at which girls can marry?  And if Mohammed enslaved enemies, and took his enemy's womenfolk into his own harem (permanently or temporarily) why shouldn't ISIS do the same?  

(e). I am using the term “Enlightenment” here to refer to a set of cultural, scientific, philosophical, political, and economic forces in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which gave rise to the hallmarks of western capitalist, democratic, and religiously tolerant pluralist society.

But is the Enlightenment a purely benign force, as Rauser seems here to assume?  Having cast off Christianity, the French Revolution, Communism, and Nazism could also claim to be children of the Enlightenment in their own ways.  Rauser and I might agree that the difference between a helpful and a harmful interpretation of the Enlightenment may lie in whether a reformer embraced or disavowed the teachings and example of Jesus.  But then our goal would not be the "Enlightenment Simpliciter," but a brand of Christian thought which Rauser and I both affirm, and we would be asking Muslims not to "reform," but to become cultural Christians.  

Why not go the whole nine yards, then, and invite them to become actual Christians?  

(f)  Western Christendom began to break down as a result of many forces including the continued fracturing of religious consensus and the growth of religious, political and economic conflict (e.g. Thirty Years War); the continued growth of the significance of the secular sphere in natural science (e.g. Galileo, Newton, Darwin) and economics (e.g. Adam Smith), the rise of philosophical skepticism (e.g. Hume, Kant), the democratizing force of politics (the French and American revolutions) and popular revivalist religion (in Britain and North America especially).

What broke down was European unity.  Christian belief, Stark shows in "Secularization, RIP," had never been as strong in Europe as the term "Christendom" would seem to imply.  And the Christian church was never fully united: the Nestorians, the Byzantines, and other churches went their ways long before European Christianity shattered into pieces.  (To the extent that it was ever one.)  

As a disciple of Adam Smith, Stark sees that breakup as healthy, encouraging true piety which had been smothered by political and religious monopoly.  (Ma Bell: "We don't care.  We don't have to.")  The words "Christendom" and "breakup" may obscure these richer realities going on beneath the surface.  And pietist and revivalist religion impacted more than just Britain and North America: it brought about dramatic reforms in Germany and Scandinavia, and ultimately most of the world.  (Those parts of the world that did not shut Christian influence out, as Islam has often tried to do.)   

(g) Christianity didn’t die as a result. Indeed, many commentators would argue that it was freed from the constraints of Christendom as it adapted to the new reality of pluralism, free market capitalism, democracy, science, and the ongoing forces of secularization. 

While "pluralism" was new to the 15th Century, perhaps, it was not new to Christianity.  The Gospel was born into pluralism, and thrived peaceably under its challenge.   What is alien to the New Testament is the idea of enforcing belief and persecuting unbelievers.  That was the true adaptation, so modern Christians can be seen as returning to their own roots.  

But can the same be said of Islam?  I don't think that it can. 

(h) It is simply wrong to think that this current clash of civilizations is a clash with Islam simpliciter just like it is wrong to think that the earlier clash with Christendom was a clash with Christianity simpliciter.

The parallel Rauser argues for here only works if Christianity and Islam, in their primary (1 and 2) definitions, relate church or mosque to state in a similar fashion.  But observe the lives of Jesus and Mohammed, or read the Scriptures they produced, and this assumption becomes difficult to sustain.  "Simple" Christianity began with Jesus rebuking his disciples for wanting to blast towns that did not listen to their message.  It began with Jesus protecting women from being stoned for adultery.  "Simple" Islam, by contrast, began with Mohammed imposing his beliefs with the sword, raiding caravans, launching attacks, cutting off limbs, seizing enemy goods, and selling women and children into slavery. 

Hinduism and Buddhism reformed in response to the challenge of the Gospel, because they were "squishy" religions (see JN Farquhar's Modern Religious Movements in India.)  Islam did not reform nearly so much, because "simple Islam" defines itself far more rigidly.  

(i)  Instead of encouraging non-Muslims to fear Islam we should be encouraging Muslims to engage with the same forces (pluralism, capitalism, democracy, etc.) that wrought change in Christendom. 

But I think what reformed Christianity, and prepared it to carry reformation to the world, was largely the character, example, and teachings of Jesus.  The Gospel was born into a plural world, and gave Christians -- when they paid attention, which they often did not do -- an example of how to peacefully persuade, rather than force, our neighbors, which we can find all through the Gospels and in Acts. Muslims may choose to ignore Mohammed's own tyrannical example and try to turn their societies towards democracy.  But Jesus' emphasis on the weaker members of society, on carrying for the poor, the sick, women, children, and the elderly, on servant leadership, on taking off his disciples dirty sandals and washing them as if he were a slave or a woman of the house, on forgiveness, working with one's hands (not pillaging neighbors), all set civic society on a firm foundation which I do not think can be found in the life of Mohammed.  

(j)  Likewise, the most effective reform of Islam will be that which engages not only in a dialogue with external factors, but also in a careful and creative ressourcement of the Muslim tradition itself.

Here Rauser is clearly relying upon a liberal understanding of religion, emphasizing the wide variety of resources that no doubt can be found in every tradition.  He is not asking that Islam express its core nature, as expressed in the life of Mohammed or in some systematic and fair approach to reading the Koran for its core or simplest method.  Rather, he's looking at it from the outside with a critical eye and a pair of pruning sheers, asking what twigs needs to be lopped off, and which allowed to grow -- hoping that some native part of the plant will prove wholesome and fruitful after the operation is complete.

The problem, we have seen, is that how Mohammed acted, what he taught, the example he set, are not what Rauser recognizes we should be aiming for.  What we do not want modern Muslims to do, is marry lots of wives, as Mohammed did, beginning when they are nine years old.  Nor do we want Muslim men to kill the husbands of infidels, then rape their ladies as the bodies of their menfolk still cool, as Mohammed did in one case.  Nor would Rauser urge future Muslims to assassinate people who criticize them, or who leave the faith. As a kindly scholar, Rauser frowns on starting wars with peaceful neighbors, as Mohammed did time and time again.  I am pretty sure Rauser also stands solidly against all forms of torture.   

So "simple" Islam must be defined in terms of the European "Enlightenment," minus its more ruthless and radical manifestations.

Which makes me wonder, given all that pruning with barely a glimpse of the pure archaic stump from which must proceed the future life of Islam, does Randal Rauser believe his own answer to his fundamental question?  That question, to which we now return, is: 

III. Should We Fear Islam? 

Now let us define another word.  What does "fear" mean?

After all, doesn't the Apostle John say "perfect love casts out fear?"  If Muslims are our neighbors, or even our enemies, doesn't the Bible teach us to love both neighbors and enemies?  In either case, if we love Muslims as the New Testament instructs, should we not then cast aside fear of them?

But fear can also mean at least two things:(a) a physiological reaction to danger which serves the purpose of motivating animals (including humans) to protect themselves by removing themselves from the danger, or the danger from themselves; (b) a chronic state of debilitating unease that arises from a lack of trust in God and confidence about the future.

Let me suggest that John does not mean that love anesthetizes us so we fail to react properly to physical danger.  He does not want us walking off cliffs, or crashing into guard rails.  He wants us to trust in a God of love Who will then liberate us from unreasonable and debilitating fears.

In that second sense, no, we should not "fear" Islam, or car accidents, bears, thin ice on a frozen lake, or anything else.  But in the first sense, well, John is not telling us to be fools.  It is right, and inevitable, that we should "fear" dangerous objects, and not jump off of tall buildings, as Satan tempted Jesus to do.

And clearly, the example and teachings of Mohammed, as preserved in the Holy Koran, "Islam simpliciter" is a dangerous thing, and ought to be feared as a healthy person fears measles or a broken leg.

So what does that mean?

"Should I invite a Muslim over for Christmas?"  Of course!  Don't be afraid to befriend your Muslim neighbors.

"Should I travel in a Muslim country?"  Some countries, and some parts of some countries, are in fact dangerous, sometimes more so if you are a woman.

"If am a security official at an airport, should I be especially careful of radical young Muslim men traveling from Iraq or Syria."  I should hope so!

"Setting immigration policies, should Canada or America wish for more immigrants who espouse sharia as the highest for of law?"   I don't see why.

"Was Andrea Merkel wise to allow 800,000 mostly male Muslim foreigners to immigrate to Germany?"  That is certainly debatable, and a prudent fear for the future of Germany ought to be assumed in that debate -- without fear of ridicule or shaming.

"Would it be wise, if you are a young woman, to attend the next New Year's celebration in Cologne?"  No, thanks to Merkel's policies, it would not.

No doubt the world would be better off if Islam took Rauser's advice, and reformed itself into something far distant from the example Mohammed set.  But I am not sure that such a reformed object would still count as Islam -- not just because I am conservative, but because Islam itself is conservative that way.  Bernard Lewis notes that Islam experienced many reforms, but none of them ever challenged the subservient status of women, slaves, or dimmis (Christians and Jews, especially).  

So my solution to this conundrum is to follow Jesus' command, and call Muslims, like other people, to put their trust in a God of love, clearly manifest in the life and teachings of Jesus.  After all, the people who followed that command, "The Great Commission," have probably already been more responsible for spreading the fruits of freedom and open society around the world than anyone else.  And some five to twenty million Muslims have converted to Christ over the past few decades.  Why quit when the game is starting to break your way?  Not that I think Randal is advocating that.

But I wouldn't advise anyone to follow the teachings or example of Mohammed.  

Reza Aslan Eliminates the danger of Islamic Violence

Parents, stop worrying about whether your kids are going to join a cult or extremist ideology.  It doesn't matter.   It only matters that you raised them well.  

After all, Nazism is just an ideology, and like all ideologies, what you make of it depends entirely on what you bring to it.  Those who are naturally violent, like Adolf Hitler, bring genocide and attacks on Germany's neighbors.  But gentle, kind, and loving converts to Nazism, do as you know make a name for themselves by feeding the poor, curing the sick, and holding the hands of the terminally-ill poor, around the world.  

Voldemortism is also just a magical orientation, and like all such orientations, depends no more and no less than on what you bring to it.  If you are incurably gothic, you will probably get nothing out of it but death to muggles.  But many other followers of Voldemort become outstanding and kindly citizens, known for their public-spiritedness.  This is why "Death-Eaters" are known for their charity work on six continents, and are fast putting Kiwanas and Lions Club out of business.  

Security Risks?

Satanism, too, is just one of many choices off the shelf of modern religions, no better or worse than any other, which will in no way affect your kids, should they choose to hang their hats on that particular sharpened peg.  

Quarkerism, too, is just a denomination.  Like all denominations, what you make of it depends no more and no less than on what you bring to it.  If you're a violence person, then you will join the world-wide Quaker Jihad, and blow up people on a weekly basis on every continent except Antarctica.  (Since Quakerism just happened to spread by men on camels carrying swords, and there are no camels in Antarctica.)

Thank you, Professor Aslan, for explaining to your intellectual inferiors why they, too, can stop worrying, and learn to love the jihad.  We now realize, as Shakespeare put it, that "nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

And I think you're a poor logician with a shaky grasp on the relationship between ideas and actions.  But no doubt in your own mind, you're brilliant.  

Mohammed enslaves Women III, then John of Damascus weighs in

We seem to share with our canine friends an unfortunate instinct to grovel before bullies. 

That is the only explanation I can find for the tendency of some non-Muslim women to depict Mohammed as enlightened or anything but ruthless in his treatment of women. 

On reading it through for the first time, I find the Quran even worse than expected. It seems little more than a vehicle by which Mohammed asserted power over others, and demanded that everyone submit utterly to him.  There is one great law to which all people must bow at all times, to gain paradise with rivers of honey and water and wine and milk, and in which one lounges on couches and eats fruit and it entertained by virgin beauties, and avoids a hell of boiling water or copper that burst one's innards and has to consume hellish devil fruit to intensify agony forever.  And that law is absolute, unquestioning obedience to the "prophet's" every whim. 

Mohammed gives women more trouble.

I am presently reading through the Quran from beginning to end for the first time.  I have taught on Islam (shortly, in the context of world religions), and I have read many books on Islam, so it is past time that I finally grappled with the source of Muslim teaching in its totality. 

It has so far been an enlightening, which does not always mean exciting, ride.  The book is very repetitive.  Sometimes it gains a kind of low-key poetic majesty, in which the very repetitions feature as a useful device.  The overwhelmingly dominant themes are:

Karen Armstrong kisses up to Mohammed (and throws her sisters under the camel train)

So, what did Mohammed really think about women?  Did he hang around the tent, chatting amicably with his women-folk, as Karen Armstrong supposes?  Or was he a sexual tyrant and master manipulator whose example and teachings help explain the low status of women in the Muslim world today?  Let's begin looking for answers to that question in the Quran itself. 

I have to admit, sometimes I enjoy it when females disrespect females in the abstract.  Maybe it's the old "divine and conquer" instinct.  Not that I'd want to listen to it every day: I'm glad that the women in my life get along.  Still, whatever doubts I have about Ann Coulter, I smiled the other day when she said she thought that in times of crisis, it's best that a nation be led by a man, not a woman.  I don't know if she is right -- I was just reading about Queen Tamar and the Golden Age of Georgia in the 11th Century yesterday -- but I smiled when she said it. 

But in her Short History of Islam, "religious scholar" Karen Armstrong takes betrayal of her own gender too far for my taste. 

Mohammed can do no wrong!

OK, I admit it, I've been a pest.  Reza Aslan's book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth rubbed me the wrong way. 

I've rebutted skeptical books on Jesus before, on Amazon, and in two books.  As "Jesus spin" goes, Aslan's book is no more crackpot than your typical Jesus Seminar screed, and certainly not as silly as your typical Doherty or Freke / Gandry production.  Yet not only have I posted twice on that book here, I've also taken to waylaying misguided reviewers on Amazon and correcting their "errors."  (Most liberals who cut Aslan way too much slack, but also a few conservatives who didn't bother reading the darn book before reviewing it.  I've also run into a few odd characters, who actually appreciated the input, and appeared to want to think through the issues!)

So what is it that bothers me about Aslan's book?

Two things, I think. 

One, perhaps, professional jealousy, or maybe something a little more respectable than that.  Yes, I do think my books are more interesting, because they uncover more of reality.  (And given that we both claim to be aiming for historical truth, that goal sets the standard of comparison.)  But also, why do so many reviewers talk about Aslan as if he had invented serious historical investigation of Jesus?  This is laughable.  He borrows much from the likes of John Crossan, John Meier, and Richard Horsley.  His bibliography is one-sided, and not much more than a tithe of a typical bibliography in a thick NT Wright volume.  As for quality, Aslan is a dilettante, yet is treated by so many readers as the summit of scholarship. 

Fame, you are a fickle and wanton lass. 

But something much deeper is bothering me, as well. 

It's not that Aslan is giving a traditional Muslim interpretation of Jesus.  He doesn't cite the Gospel of Barnabas, where Jesus begs to tie Mohammed's shoelaces.  He doesn't say that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, nor does he confuse Mary with the Holy Spirit. 


But he does something more clever, and insidious, and it bothers me that so many "liberal" readers are letting him get away with it. 

Aslan is throwing mud on Jesus, and simultaneously whitewashing Mohammed, so as to bring both men into the orbit of Islamic orthodoxy.  He is, in his own way, offering a far more sophisticated Islamic interpretation of Jesus, which is in that sense narrow-minded, triumphalist, and imperialistic, yet not only makes a mint off the scam, but is praised for tolerance, careful scholarship, and open-mindedness, into the bargain. 

And that does offend my love of justice. 

I flitted over to Aslan's book on Islam, No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, and future of Islam.  While liberals were swallowing Aslan's portrait of Jesus as a violent revolutionary wholesale, they also seem eager to echo his apparent portrait of a kinder and gentler Mohammed. 

Let me quote a couple comments on that site from more "moderate" or "reasonable" visitors.  Someone calling himself A Thomas Jefferson, wrote:

"The prophet appears to have been a good and devout man, who had strong beliefs on how we should live our lives in the light of God and what HE requires of us. Basically, the Golden Rule. To love, respect and care for one another.

"However, much like Judaism and Christianity, men stepped in with their own interpretations and bastardized what was good in God's will and/or laws, all of which were influenced by their lust for power."

That set me off on a micro-tirade:

"This book portrays Mohammed as a 'good and just man?'   The historians I've read say he raped, murdered en mass, started numerous wars of conquest, enslaved his victims, tortured, married a 9 year old (in his 50s), and stole his son-in-laws wife, among others. This 'good and just man' would be in prison for life in our day, and that's if he lived in a state without capital punishment."

The two gentlemen who responded seem intelligent, generally reasonable (I've seen the second post elsewhere), and well-read.  But I was astounded at their rebuttals of this no doubt rather intemperate screed.  No part of those rebuttals, to my surprise, involved denying a single one of the charges I had just brought against The Prophet! 

A. Thomas Jefferson: "I've always believed you can only judge a man in the context of the time in which he lived. The prophet lived in a very violent, turbulent time. He was an honest, fair and compassionate man by comparison. BTW, I think his son-in-laws wife means she is the daughter of the prophet. I read no such thing. And there are still cultures today that marry off their daughters at age 8 or 9."

Lawrence Bachmann: "If all of the appalling conduct you describe were true, would his behavior be worse than pedophile priests and their enabling bishops? Or Christian ministers (Martin Luther, one of Protestantism founders) who were grotesquely anti Semitic and misogynistic? Surely he was at least as "good and just" as that hate monger Luther and his crazy cohort, John Calvin. And was Mohammed more bellicose than Pope Julius II? More hysterically superstitious than Salem Puritans? I think not.

"Christians have a hell of a lot to answer for before you can start pointing fingers at others. Shame on you."

Do you suppose Jefferson and Bachmann really believe these arguments?  The scary thing is, how typical they are.  But let us draw out their implications:

(a) "You can only judge a man in the context of the time in which he lived."  So how should we judge Jim Jones?  He lived in the terrible 20th Century, when many of the history's cruelest tyrants committed horrific genocides, bloody wars raged around the world, totalitarian regimes crushed human dignity and destroyed great art, and the world was almost destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. 

Clearly, Jim Jones was not to blame for his crimes!  He was unduly influenced by New Age flakes and Marxist savages. 

And what about those pedophile priests Bachmann mentions? Many were probably abused as children.  They grew up in a sex-crazed era, and were forced to hide their strange loves to enter into their chosen vocations. 

By comparison to Hitler, Jim Jones was pretty even-tempered. 

(b) The word "judge" here must be defined.  I am not a literal judge, with Mohammed standing before me in a court with a gavel on my desk, capable of sending him on a whim to a tiger or a lady.  I am an Amazon reader, considering what a reviewer says about a book about a man who has been dead 1400 years, but whose influence continues to grow.  Is it not the duty of a historically-informed person, and of any responsible person in our day, to "judge" the character of so important a religious leader in that sense? 

(c) Mohammed invited his enemies to a free conference, then betrayed them and had them murdered.  He made up thread-bare "revelations" from God, obviously to justify his own sexual and financial desires.  Some Meccans concluded that he was a liar.  On what grounds should we dispute their assessment?   Does Mr. Jefferson possess independent knowledge that Mohammed's claimed meetings with angels and ascent to heaven actually occurred?  Or is he implicitly accusing Mohammed's neighbors of being worse liars, so that we cannot "judge" these relatively petty offenses against truth?  On what grounds? 

(d)  Starting numerous wars, murdering 700 unarmed men, raping, marrying a child, etc, do not only fail to meet the 21st Century definition of "compassion," they would not have impressed Jesus in the 1st Century ("by their fruits you will know them"), St. Paul ("love is patient, love is kind") or Confucius or Mo Zi or Isaiah in previous centuries. 

(e) Yes, there ARE still cultures that marry daughters at 8 or 9 -- thanks mostly to Mohammed's poor example. 

(f) Bachmann's criticism is even more odder.  First of all, how is "mongering" hatred, as Martin Luther certainly did in his infamous anti-Semitic letter, worse than actually attacking and killing your neighbors?  Not to mention Mohammed's other crimes, few of which Luther can be credibly accused. 

(g) But who said I defend that letter?  In fact, elsewhere on this site I describe it as "deeply embarrassing for Christians."

(h) More oddly still, what is Lawrence saying about pedophile priests?  Is he claiming that I have ever defended them?  Honestly, if he supplies the stake and wood, I'll be happy to supply the match.

(i) But by Bachmann's argument, he cannot criticize those pedophile priests, since he is defending a pedophile prophet.  Does he really wish to make this argument -- and disarm every morally aware person on the planet, who abhor priests who abuse children? 

I suspect Mr. Bachmann has simply not considered the implications of his argument. 

(j) John Calvin was not "crazy."  Nor do I claim Mohammed was, either.  Calvin was in some ways far too harsh in his thinking.  He was also a brilliantly lucid writer, whose insights may or may not balance his oversights.  But a biographer should indeed take note of his bellicosity -- that, indeed, is the duty of an honest biographer.  

(k) Is Bachmann's final point that as a reader, human being, and incidentally an historian, I have no right to criticize non-Christian tyrants and murderers, because some Christians have done bad things, as well?  If that is the case, let's just put history quickly out of its misery.  Because if that is so, then atheists can't critize crazy religious people, and religious people can't criticize crazy atheists, and everyone needs to keep his hand firmly over his mouth all of the time. 


I must be missing something.  Surely liberals don't want to end critical history.  In fact, Mr. Bachmann us itching to go after Catholic priests, bishops and popes, Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans in Massachusetts.  (Who did not make a pile of money by burning witches, as Mohammed did by conquering his neighbors, however.)  And he's welcome to have at them.  If Christians have flaws, as clearly we did, it is important that we face them honestly. 

And surely liberals don't want us to back off on pedophiles in the church?  Or to make excuses for their opponents, because they were also raised in environments that may have influenced them to do things liberals don't like?  Maybe Richard Nixon had excuses for his paranoia.  Maybe George W. Bush should also be forgiven for overthrowing that dictator with the brush under his chin -- growing up in a Republican household must have been traumatic. 

Historical honesty is, I think, the best policy.

The same issue came up with communism.  We had a phenomena that some called "anti-anti-Communism," with these same lines spoken in a 70-year-long dress rehearsal.  I still have a clipping in my files of a Presbyterian pastor writing in the New York Times, claiming that American Christians are really just as bad as the communists, and we had no right to criticize them. 

Forget about the millions of Christians (and non-Christians) in the Gulag. 

The stakes when it comes to the "Mohammed wars" are also high.  Historical Jewish communities in the Middle East have already been driven out.  Mohammed himself started this processing, by driving out or massacring the Jewish tribes of Medina. 

Now Christians are disappearing.  Churches are burning in Pakistan.  Mobs are assaulting Christians in Egypt.  Rebels are murdering Christians in Syria.  (I have to disagree with John McCain on this one -- much as I hate to see Iran win, Christians will pretty much be wiped out in Syria if the rebels come out on top.) 

One reason we get along with dogs, I suspect, is that it is also human nature to "suck up" to Alpha males.  But in an effort to make peace with a threatening civilization, we shall again throw our weak allies in those civilizations "under the bus," as they say. 

Mohammed, like Marx, was a cruel man, and his cruelty set a pattern for those who followed.  If speaking that truth honestly means we must also look clearly at the misstatements of Martin Luther, or the crimes of certain priests, so much the better.  Whatever else is right, it is not right to sweep enormous crimes under Reza Aslan's Persian rug.