I went looking for some good old fashioned Christian theocratic scriptural "Murderous" religious hate online. Everybody (here on newsvine it seems) appears to accept as fact, that it's out there, somewhere, motivating Christian violence all around the world. Many of the ideologically liberal progressives participants around here source the same shit, or intellectual excrement that does not work well historically nor logically as a theocratic incitement, or justification for violence. That would be in the here and now, the present day.
Hoping to discover something contemporary or thereabouts, as close as I could get, you know, along the lines of "slay the pagans wherever you find them" (9:5) or " Fight those who believe not in Allah "(9:29). It was more difficult than originally thought.
Because as Ms. Ali claims in my recently seeded article, that is a motivating factor in the all too prevalent "Jihadist" bloodletting consuming large parts of the globe today. There most be some equivalent Christian scriptural hate to source?
The closet I came was Martin Luther, he was the founder of a sect of Christianity, and for sure was down with the usage of violence to further his dogma. This was the closest parallel to the sourced Islamic incitement to violence that I could find. There may be more examples, as well as better examples still. If, by chance, you are aware of them, perhaps you will share? Sourced material is requested.
Please note the distinction, I am not claiming what motivated the actions sourced here. I am simply quoting their own words, or what they claim as motivating factors or justification for their actions.
I will first examine the claims made by Ms. Ali, in an effort to see if there is any clear cut, the verifiable effect on the theocratic compulsions. Will corresponding actions leading from them, be found in codified the text by the participants themselves as a motivating factor in their atrocities or war crimes they have committed.
Osama Bin laden quoted 9:5 in his 1996 fatwa sourced by PBS or his Islamic justification for the course of action he was about to undertake, leading to the attack directed at New York city on September the 11 2001. This was published worldwide, and as well as notification of his intent, it was also a call to join him and his "struggle" or jihad.
It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers. Allah knows that there blood is permitted (to be spilled) and their wealth is a booty; their wealth is a booty to those who kill them. The most Exalted said in the verse of As-Sayef, The Sword: “so when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters where ever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush” (At-Tauba; 9:5).
This can be said to directly lead to Faisal Shahzad, (NY Times) the failed Times square bomber and his "jihad fi sabillah" (struggle in the way of allah) Faisal, viewed Bin laden as a new Saladin or new commander of the faithful, fighting the new twenty first century crusader army.Who are naturally, the everyday run of the mill pedestrians and motorists of NY city, going about their mundane yet fruitful, meaningful, anonymus lives?
And after the judge formally sentenced Mr. Shahzad to life in prison, she left him a parting shot: “I do hope that you will spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people.
He, Faisal, seems to have already done so. And deeply believes that he should have taken the course of action that he did. As should be apparent to the judge who's courtroom the defendant is standing in, freshly convicted of a plot to kill a vast number of random people.
From the long war journal we find motivating factors in the failed attack.
Arif Rafiq, the president of Vizier Consulting and editor of the Pakistani Policy Blog told The Long War Journal. “Shahzad says jihad is an integral part of Islam and emphasizes the need to spread Islam worldwide.”
As do the foot notes of verse (2:190) in the Noble Quran published by the Saudi government.
“I will carry this attack on their behalf, and I hope that it will please Muslims,” Shahzad said in the 40-minute-long video. “With jihad, the basis of Islam can be enforced and the word of Allah and his religion will prevail,” Shahzad continued. “Abandoning jihad destroys the religion and puts Muslims in an insulting position as they get robbed of land and authority.”
Shahzad said jihad, or holy war, is a “pillar” of Islam, and that Muslims worldwide ignore jihad, which puts them “in a humiliating position.”
“One of the most prominent things in Islam when I came to it was Jihad,” Shahzad said. “People do their prayers, pay Zakat [a tax], fast, and perform Hajj [pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia]. They follow one part of the religion, and drop another, which is the fight for the sake of Allah. Jihad means holy war for the sake of God. It is one of the holiest deeds in Islam, and one of its pillars. With Jihad the word of Allah is raised higher, and his religion prevails. By abandoning it, religion is destroyed, and Muslims are put in a humiliating position; their lands are stolen, and their authority is stripped from them.”
Many of Faisal's ideas are taken nearly verbatim from the text linked above.
(V. 2:190) Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior […] and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
Here would be an example of the usage of the verse (9:29), being used today to negatively effect real people in a real place.
Source of statement is attributed to “Ahl al Sunna li al Da’wa wa al Jihad,”(“People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad”) otherwise known as Boko Haram.
In an all to common progressive narrative of these events, it is those who spend their entire lives studying the Quran and dedicate their lives to acting out the prophet's "sunnah" (habitual practice). Trying to live their lives as close to the way Mohammad and his companions did, who least understand the message contained in the text that they relentlessly study, having dedicated their lives to understanding it.
It's nonbelieving western academia as well as media talking heads who support a multicultural progressive dogma that understands the true teachings of "the religion of peace". Just ask them.
“Today (Sunday) Almighty Allah has given us victory against Christian Churches in Kaduna and Zaria which led to the deaths of many Christians and security operatives.”
The statement also claimed that Almighty Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran chapter 9 v 29 to launch attack against Jews and Christians who refused to believe in him, his messenger, Prophet Mohammed
A second example is here. The Jizya tax is called for in verse 9:29.
A new video purportedly released by the Islamic State shows an ISIS militant imposing the “jizya” tax on Christians in Al-Qaryatayn, near Homs, Syria. The video is titled “Fight Until They Give the Jizyah Willingly While They Are Humbled.” Syria HR reports: “[ISIS] received money in the last 48 hours from Christian clerks from the city of al- Qaryatain in the southeast of Homs, where [it] imposed Jizya (a religiously required per capita tax on non-Muslims under Islamic law) on the Christians in the city of al- Qaryatain.” The article goes on to state that the Christians who didn’t want to pay the tax were told to convert to Islam or leave the city. Click on for photos of the Christians who opted to pay the tax to the Islamic State and become “dhimmi“, or protected non-Muslim people under Sharia Law.
Dhimmi [is] an Arabic word meaning “protected.” Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683).” ISIS plans to bring this back in their current conquest. To be protected, dhimmi must pay the jizya tax.
According to The Washington Post, ISIS isn’t the only Islamist group to implement jizya. In 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters forced roughly 15,000 Christian Copts of Dalga village in Egypt to pay a jizya tax. Jizya is described in the Quran verse 9:29:
Now my attempt to source the Christian equivalent. Or near as I could find.
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his "complaints", a series of condemnation of Church practices, to the door of the Cathedral at Wittenberg. He questioned the practice of the Catholic church's issuing of indulgences (get out of sin free cards) this was at the time, seen as an attack on the Church as a whole.
During a public debate held in Leipzig Germany in 1519 with Johann von Eck, a prominent well respected German theologian, Luther admitted that he did not believe in papal supremacy.(The infallibility of the pope) The issue of papal hegemonic tradition had become one of Luther’s pet peeves, or principle targets of condemnation against the Church in Rome beginning in 1518. Imagine this, the fucking pope, the very Vicar of Christ on earth was referred to as the “anti-Christ” and the “Whore of Babylon”. Dude had some balls for sure.
That really did not go over very well in Rome. After careful consideration, in 1521, Pope Leo X formally excommunicated Martin Luther from the Catholic church.
"My opinion is that it is better that all the peasants be killed than that the princes and magistrates perish, because the rustics took the sword without divine authority. The only possible consequence of their satanic wickedness would be the diabolic devastation of the kingdom of God. Even if the princes abuse their power, yet they have it of God, and under their rule the kingdom of God at least has a chance to exist. Wherefore no pity, no tolerance should be shown to the peasants, but the fury and wrath of God should be visited upon those men who did not heed warning nor yield when just terms were offered them, but continued with satanic fury to confound everything. ... To justify, pity, or favor them is to deny, blaspheme, and try to pull God from heaven."
Source: Letter of Martin Luther to Nicholas Amsdorf, 25 May 1525
If Lutherans start some shit and start killing "peasants" who revolt against a government where ever the find them, we know where to look for their motivation. It would be as correct as well to blame the theological justification for the violence on Martin's words
But are modern-day Lutherans the same-bloodthirsty lot?
Why ain't they?
He don't really quote no bible passages (no Jesus said kill them quotes) while he rants and calls for the murder of every human being under the sun who sees god differently than him. Lutherans are a modern day sect of Christianity. I live near a Lutheran church as a matter of fact, and I'm very "peasant like" in my personal appearance. (LOL) And am sure that my pagan shit still does not go over too well. I have a Celtic hex sign in my from yard, and a standing stone in my back yard.
For now, I'm largely unconcerned, but as soon as they start that shit over in Europe again, I'm keeping my eye on them over here. Ya never knows.
It may surprise you, but in my opinion, Martin Luther was a good dude in so far as a cost-benefit analysis of human history. One little war. historically between less than a dozen killed or a few thousand killed. Historians don't agree.
Lutherans never formed any armies, conquered any nations. Some claim Martin's moment of madness (the reformation) was the springboard to the enlightenment. If true, they were lives well spent in the advancement of human development.
All of human history is a cost benefit trade off. Life, after all, is unfair. There is no benevolent sky fairy nor guardian angel making things ok for us in the end. There is no "tide of history" leading humanity in any one direction or another. Civilization was a bloody thing to accomplish. It did not just happen over night, nor in a vacuum. History, culture the society we are from, all works together to makes us all who we eventually become.
The three big strikes against Christianity are the Crusades, slavery, and the Spanish inquisition.
First, the Crusades, what is the problem with them?
Many Muslim jihadists think that what is happening now is a crusade. Making it the tenth. I am down with this one as well, if that is how it is to be described.
What people, with or without, any particular sky fairy delusion, would not want to stop the onslaught started by Mohammad with his letter to the Byzantine emperor to submit of face the consequences? Around five hundred years of Jihad before an organized defense was even suggested. The first Crusade.
Before that, the caliphate, the Ummah or theoretic community attacked one nation, and it defended itself or lost. The crusades were nothing more than European Christian nations under attack, joining together to go on the attack themselves. Europe lost, but gained enough time to out pace them technologically, so that further attempts were futile.
The last serious attempt was WW 1. The Ottoman's called a proper jihad, few people know that.
And some Muslims around the world responded.http://www.instituteofaustralianculture.com/war-in-broken-hill-1915/ slay them where ever you find them. Even if it's on a picnic train in Australia.
The Jewish persecution was all on the Christians and dogma,(Christian supersessionism theory) the kicking out of the Muslims was common sense.
Spain was invaded in 711 AD by a few thousand Muslims, tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands more poured in. It was like they were on a mission or something (LOL)The indigenous Spaniards lived as Dhimmis in their own nation for around seven centuries after that. Do you think that the Spanish looked approvingly on that? Or do you think that an all-consuming hateful resentment built up over time?
Here is one of the early document for the Christian expulsion of the Muslims (ninth century). Is that hate mongering? He is quoting the bible. Is that the same as Boko Haram quoting the Quran? I get a different vibe.
In what way can you see the defeated Muslims living peacefully with the infidels of Spain/ Andalusia?
In their own little villages or towns outside the Spanish ones? or do you think it would end up like Israel and Gaza/Palestine?
The Eid Al-Adha (September 24, 2015) editorial of the London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi discussed the current state of the Muslim world, and bemoaned how many Muslims are slaughtering their brethren in Arab and Islamic countries. It added that Muslims today are in the throes of an unprecedented catastrophe that surpasses even the loss of Andalusia and of Palestine.
Did you know around 4 million Germans were tossed out of the surrounding nations after WW2 and had, in fact, lived there for generations?
There is, or once was, and still should be serious consequences for military adventurism. Otherwise you are like Israel, just waiting for the next attack to come, restrained from victory by means other than force of arms. How come Israel don't get all old testament on a defeated, yet still belligerent enemy?
Could it be because they are Arabs, and not Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites? the people who the ancient Hebrews are said to have been told to kill by their G*d?
Modern archaeology says it never happened anyways, it just did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ3-KeFplmk
The Hebrew bible is in my opinion a mix of stories told around campfires, passed down real oral history, delusion and dogma.
The mass killing.... they were telling stories about how fucking bad ass their ancestors were, spoken while siting around the camp fire at night. That is what secular reality supports.
Well before Sol Invictus (the unconquered son) Constantine, turned a dead Jewish dude into a living god three hundred twenty-five after he died, giving us our modern version of the faith agreed upon at the counsel of Nicea in 325 AD.
This is an example of the coins that Constantine had minted even after his questionable conversion from paganism to Christianity, on its back it still contains the inscription and the symbol for his favorite pagan sun God, "Sol Invictus". The truth be told, Constantine surreptitiously simply changed the name of his favorite pagan sun God "Sol Invictus", to "Jesus", in the half pagan/half Christian hybrid called "Catholicism", that he came up with.
The Catholics simply gave Sol Invictus the new name "Jesus" so that they could keep worshiping the old pagan sun God under a guise. In fact Constantine even made up December 25th as the fake new birth date for Jesus just because it was the age old traditional birthday of his real favorite, pagan sun God, "Sol Invictus".
This was Christian life in the Roman empire. Those verses in the Christian part of the bible that talk about slavery. It was directed to the slaves, the Christians.
Christians had no slaves at the time, they were the slaves. A distinction lost on many of the most progressive left. Christianity was better than pagan Rome, it advanced humans from where they were, to a more humane understanding of mans place in the universe. I say that as a pagan.
If you are looking for utopia, however and thought perhaps Christianity would bring it, know utopia is as imaginary as talking sky fairies. It literally means nowhere in Greek.
Each and every Roman emperor was a Mohammad. If like say, a Julius Caesar was made a prophet (he cut out the middle man, he deified himself) , and his life was made one to emulate by believers. There could never have been a Mohammad, we would all worship Mars. He was the Son of Mars. (The god of war) Caesar killed perhaps one million Celts for secular reasons.
Christianity replaced a "god-king" living and ruling on human emotions on this earth, with a "perfect" dead Jewish dude looking down and judging the king way up there "from sky fairy heaven".
I'm not saying it makes any sense, it does not. It makes no sense at all to me. It does not have to. It was better however then what it replaced.
If you look at it like a pagan, in a near contemporary sense. Jesus would have been a hippy, killed by Hell's Angels at a peace and love concert in the 60s, while trying to break up a fight. While Mohammad would have been Charley Manson, only wildly successful with his family spreading east fast. Millions of refugees would be swimming the Mississippi river to find sanctuary on the far side.
kpr37 with a pagan's perspective.