Get thee behind me, Christ

Get thee behind me, Christ - the Life and Crimes of Modern Christianity

Isn't it funny how some Christians can get all high and mighty about terrorism committed by Muslims, but forget about how many people that Christians have killed over the years through genocide, wars and terrorism.

Since World War II, the United States alone has killed up to 30 million people⁽¹⁾. Supposedly a Christian nation trusting in God, it has either waged war directly or sponsored war or the overthrow of governments across the globe⁽²⁾. Of course the USA isn't going to say it is waging these wars in the name of Christ, it comes up with something a little more subtle, like 'bringing democracy' or 'fighting terror'. The War on Drugs gave America the excuse to invade, overthrow and train despots throughout the world, particularly in South America. The War on Terror gave America the excuse to wage an endless, undefined war any where in the world for any reason⁽³⁾. After all, what is a terrorist? Someone who opposes the American Empire?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Since World War II, the West has embarked on a litany of state-sponsored terrorism that has killed millions, injured millions, displaced millions.

It was no secret that the USA, Great Britain and even Australia sponsored the brutal overthrow of socialist President Sukarno in Indonesia by President Suharto who then committed genocide of communists and others opposed to the government. But the western nations were happy with this as long as a socialist wasn't in power ... and we all know how anti-Christian Socialists are. Don't we?

There was the US sponsoring of the Shah of Iran who brutally murdered thousands and was ultimately overthrown in a revolution that was as much about removing a despot as it was about sending a signal to America.

The USA armed Saddam Hussein in the 1980s so he could wage war against Iran and his own people. The subsequent invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies in 1991 and the ongoing bombing of Iraq during the 1990s killed thousands, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people who were impacted by cancers caused by the USA using depleted uranium warheads ⁽⁴⁾. Then there were the sanctions, which over the years directly caused the deaths of more than 500,000 children. Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State, was confronted with this on 60 Minutes. Her reply? 'We think the price is worth it' ⁽⁵⁾.

The second war in Iraq in 2003 resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, more than Saddam Hussein ever killed, as well as resulted directly in the rise of ISIS and over a thousand extremist groups in Syria and Iraq as the Western funded and trained extremist groups against the Assad regime. It's not just the US funding and arming these groups. Other western nations, including France, Britain and Germany have all contributed to extremist groups in Syria and Iraq⁽⁶⁾

During the 1980s, the United States, in the so-called Cold War against the Soviets, used Islamist missionary agency, Tablighi Jamaat, to recruit young, impressionable Muslims from across the globe in what the US marketed as a jihad against the Communist 'enemies of God' who had invaded the sovereign Muslim nation of Afghanistan. The US funding, recruiting, arming, training and radicalising of Mujahadeen and other jihadists during this time resulted in the deaths of thousands as well as directly led to the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. ⁽⁷⁾

The invasion of Korea and Vietnam led to wars in those countries that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

The overthrow of the socialist President Allende in Chile by the murderous General Pinochet, resulted in years of disappearances, torture and murders by government forces. But the USA was happy with this, as long as a socialist wasn't in power.

It is easy to say that none of this was done in the name of Christ.

It is easy to say that Muslims kill in the name of their own God while the USA kills in the name of democracy, not Christ.

Of course, there is the sponsoring, funding and prayerful support of Israel as it commits genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine in the name of God and the holy scriptures.

While some Islamic terrorists will kill in the name of the religion, many others are fighting for political reasons and either just happen to be Muslim or are gaining strength from their religion when they fight against the theft of their land and killing of their people.

Palestinians are a great example of this. They are not killing in the name of their God, they are killing or fighting in the defence of their land that has been illegally stolen in the name of God by a Zionist Israel backed by a Christian America. It is a myth that Israel is defending itself. It is the aggressor in a land that it stole⁽⁸⁾. If anyone is killing in the name of God, it is Israel and the Christians who believe in Zionism: that the bible says modern Israel is a fulfilment of prophecy. Israel has become an extension of American empire and Zionism is key to maintaining the support of America as a 'Christian' nation⁽⁹⁾. Even worse, it is being used to dehumanise Palestinians and delegitimise their claims to the land with the lie that Israel was founded on a 'land without a people for a people without a land'. Palestine was inhabited for thousands of years and the Zionist Jews who stole it already had their own land: Europe. It is Israel that is the invention, not Palestine⁽¹⁰⁾.

The theft and occupation of Palestine and the ongoing abuse and subjugation of the people is the common issue that feeds violent retribution from Palestinians and the actions of many Islamic terrorists. Then there is violent occupations of Muslim lands by the USA and its allies that also gives impetus to much of Islamic terrorism.

The thousands of deaths from Islamic terrorism are much less than the millions of deaths by Christians.

'Why do they hate us so much?', asked many Americans after 9/11. Perhaps take a long hard look at American interventions across the globe and the deaths that they have caused, as well as the loss of land and livelihood.

The vast majority of American leaders have been Christian. And the vast majority of right-wing Christians have not only supported them and voted for them, but have prayed for them and their actions in these wars and interventions.

To separate Christianity from the actions of Christians is to say that those Christians are not Christian 24/7. That it is ok to turn their back on difficult scriptures such as:

'Turn the other cheek'.

'Love your enemy'.

'Bless those who curse you'.

'Love your neighbour as yourself'.

The bible describes how Christ was tempted for forty days and nights by Satan. During this period, Satan promised Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if he would bow down and worship him. While Jesus declined the offer, the leaders of the American empire have clearly taken it up.

Christians who support the hegemony of American empire while condemning those who oppose the death and destruction it brings, would do well to keep in mind the admonition by Christ in Matthew 7:5 - 'Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye'.

For many non-Muslims it is easy to blame Islam whenever there is a terrorist attack. However, this fails to take responsibility for the consequences of the West's actions, particularly the United States under the leadership of Christians, in the death and maiming of millions of people across the globe, many of them Muslim. This lack of accountability, this inability to understand the consequences of their actions, seems to be a common trait of many conservatives who've supported American war-mongering and war-profiteering in the destruction of innocent people.

There is a quaint little scripture in the bible that says, 'Get thee behind me Satan'. It seems that Christians who wage or condone war, other acts of violence and ethnic cleansing have ignored their own God and turned that scripture into:

'Get thee behind me, Christ'.

References:

1. Signs of the Times, James A. Lucas, Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two, 24 April 2007, http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two. Accessed 31 October 2015

2. William Blum, Killing Hope - US Military and CIA interventions since World War II, Common Courage Press, 2004.

3. John Pilger, The New Rulers of the World, Verso, 2002.

4. John Pilger, 'Paying the Price - Killing the Children of Iraq', 2000, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLPWlMmV7s

5. 60 Minutes, CBS, 'Punishing Saddam', 12 May 1996.

6. The Guardian, Martin Chulov, 'France funding rebels in new push to oust Assad', 8 December 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/france-funding-syrian-rebels. Accessed 30 October 2015.

7. John Cooley, Unholy Wars - Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (Third Edition), Pluto Press, 2002.

8. Miko Peled, 'The General's Son - Journey of an Israeli in Palestine', Just World Books, 2012.

9. Naim Ateek, Cedar Duaybis and Maurine Tobin (editors), Challenging Christian Zionism - Theology, Politics and the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Melisende, 2005.

10. Shlomo Sand, 'The Invention of the land of Israel - From Holy Land to Homeland', Verso, 2012.

--0--

Other articles in the 'Remove the Plank' series:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The Light of love and a bushel of bigotry
• Religion of Peace & Love?

Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity

Continuing with the theme about the hypocrisy of the campaigns against Islam, there are a number of people who are waging a 'bacon' war against Muslims. The theory is that because Muslims don't eat pork products, they can be driven out of Australia if some dang fool goes and smears bacon fat on the counter of a Muslim owned shop, or if said fool carries a ham sandwich around (somewhat akin to carrying garlic to repel a vampire ... and about as effective), or throwing a pig's head into the grounds of a mosque.

The world truly has gone mad.

The scary thing is that there really are people who honestly believe these actions will effectively repel Islam. What the hell is wrong with these people? They are the dregs of society, attacking innocent people with idiocy such as this.

Even more so, the Christians who promote these pork wars and think it is their calling in life.

Some argue that Australia is a Christian nation and therefore Halal does not belong. Australia actually is not a Christian nation. For it to be so, there would need to be some official government document to that effect, say like the Constitution. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution indicates that Australia is a secular nation with complete freedom of all religions in which the government can make no religious law either for or against any religion: 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

Every religion is welcome and protected in Australia.

Moving on.

Keep in mind that many of the anti-Halal Christians are also Zionists. Which means they worship the modern state of Israel as being a fulfilment of scripture. Let's ignore the fact that it is a Jewish state, so Israel does not worship or even recognise Christ. This in itself goes against the whole purpose of Jesus coming to Earth in the first place to redeem man from sin. But pardon my paralipsis. Back to the topic. In a nutshell this means that the pork war is potentially going to be offensive to Jews, whom many Christians have a great affinity for.

Let's have a quick look at what the bible says about pork and about Christians arming themselves with weapons of mass pork warfare.

• Leviticus 11:7-8 - and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. 8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.
• Deuteronomy 14:8 - Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.
• Isaiah 66:17 - “Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

So the bible actually tells Christians they can't eat bacon. Of course, some Christians will argue against this and say that God changed his mind in the New Testament.

For instance, Mark 7:15 says There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.

Many Christians believe that this scripture now sanctifies all food. The scripture points out the obvious, that it isn't food that's important, but how a person lives their life. Those Christians who are living their lives to slander other religions are really just defiling themselves.

So, if Christians now believe that bacon is ok to eat ... then perhaps they might want to consider Acts 10:28 about not calling other people unclean:

Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Funnily enough, many Christians will justify eating bacon because the bible tells them its ok, yet they will complain about eating halal because it's not. There rationale? Acts 15:29 which states ' ... abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, from sexual immorality'. Is Allah an idol? Well ... that could be a long stretch, considering the word 'Allah' is the Arabic word for 'God', and the God worshipped by Muslims is the God of the Jews and of Christians. Hardly an idol. Additionally, putting some context around this scripture, it goes on to advise abstaining from blood. This could be taken to mean abstaining from all meat ... or it could mean to abstain from drinking blood ... you know, as Christians do in communion. Of course, it isn't warning against communion, but other religions did drink blood as a sacrifice to idols. Islam does no such thing.

Christians aren't just attacking Muslims by waging war with pork, but are also attacking halal certification. Halal means permissible. For cattle, this means killing the animal in a certain way while praying over them. Pigs are not allowed to be eaten, so are considered haraam (forbidden).

Romans 14:2-3 tells Christians that they are not to attack others for their culinary choices:

For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

1 Corinthians 10:31 tells us that whatever we do has to be for God's glory ... is attacking Muslims for halal certification or by throwing bacon at them really glorifying God? In fact, 1 Corinthians 10:32 is emphatic about not causing offense to anyone:

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

So do the Christians who attack Muslims think this is some new evangelism strategy? Or do they just not care what the bible is telling them to do? Do they not care about the greatest commandment that Jesus gave them (love your neighbour as yourself).

In the New Testament the disciples traveled around the Middle East and Europe, meeting people from other religions. One of the issues they faced was food sacrificed to idols. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 clearly says it's ok to eat whatever is sold in the shops.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.

1 Corinthians 10:27 goes on to direct us to eat whatever is served up to us:

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.

So why the concern about halal? Some Christians believe that Muslims worship a false god, so when meat is killed while prayers to Allah are being said, they believe that this is meat sacrificed to an idol. However, eating halal food should be of no consequence for them given the scriptures about everything being pure and clean.

Titus 1:15-16 states that all things are pure and, just like in Mark 7:15, to not have an offensive attitude which disobeys what God has called us to do, namely to do good works: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Funnily enough, Christians are called to be do-gooders ... not to do evil ... not to attack others, not to spread hatred.

Some will argue that it isn't halal they are concerned about, but halal certification. They believe that halal certification adds cost to the product. Considering it costs around $1,000 per annum, it would add very little cost to a product. Many others believe that money from halal certification is used to fund terrorism. On 24 November 2014, political journalist, Malcolm Farr appearing on ABC's Insiders program said: 'to those pig-ignorant droogs who shut down a South Australian business because it had halal certified yoghurt selling to Emirates. What stupid, stupid people! If they really think that this money goes to terrorists, they should stop buying petrol'

Ephesians 2:10 - For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Waging a pork war against Muslims is not a demonstration of Christ's workmanship or the good works he created us for.

It is a pathetic demonstration of racism, xenophobia and hatred. It is anything but showing Christ's love for others. If Christians are so concerned about Muslims forcing their ways onto us, then surely the anti-halal and anti-burqa campaigns are forcing the ways of bigots onto others.

What are these people trying to achieve? Do they honestly think that Muslims will put down their Korans because someone throws a pork sandwich at them? These vile and violent actions will only feed hatred and hostility, and possibly fuel reprisal actions. Such vulgar campaigns only serve to create more problems than they solve.

It should be pointed out that not all Christians believe in attacking Muslims. But for those who do, this disobedience of the bible is more of a threat to Christians than worrying about whether or not a packet of M&M's is halal certified, particularly considering that pastors and other influential people are pushing these bigoted views from their pulpits and Twitter accounts encouraging people to tell lies rather than truth, to have fear rather than faith, to hate rather than love.

Before attacking the speck in your brother's eyes, remove the plank in your own.



Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising or attacking Islam. Other articles include:

• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity 
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry 
• Religion of Peace & Love?

Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity

This article is a continuation of the theme regarding how hypocritical it is to criticise Islam, particularly when the criticism comes from Christians. People should remove the plank in their own eye before looking at the speck in someone else's eye.

This article addresses the attacks on Islam regarding lying. Funnily enough, a number of the critics that accuse Islam of promoting deceitfulness are actually lying about it by not correctly explaining the conditions under which lying is considered acceptable.

Islam does have a rule, called taqiyya, which allows hiding one's Islamic faith if it means saving one's life. It appears in Sura 16, verse 106 and says:

Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment.

Taqiyya essentially means disimulation or feigning.

There is also the concept of kitman, which is lying by omission.

One could go into an entire expository just on taqiyya and kitman, but in essence, lying is only permitted in the following circumstances:

• within marriage to keep the peace 
• between tribes/nations to keep the peace 
• to save one's life, so for instance saying they are not a believer - however, their heart has to still be towards Allah

In each occasion, it is in relation to keeping peace or saving lives. Not all Muslims agree with this and believe that those who use taqiyya are afraid of man when they should be afraid of Allah.

Taqiyya is not mandatory. It is not a requirement that needs to be fulfilled. In fact, the Koran condemns lying. For instance:

Sura 2:42 - And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it] Sura 78:35 - No ill speech will they hear therein (in heaven) or any falsehood

Sura 39:3 - Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say], "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position." Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever.

However, let's look at whether Christians who accuse Muslims of lying may in fact need to look a little closer afield, say at their own bible.

Firstly, there are numerous scriptures in the bible that demand truth, such as:

Proverbs 12:17 - He who speaks truth declares righteousness, But a false witness, deceit.

Proberbs 12:19-20 - The truthful lip shall be established forever, But a lying tongue is but for a moment. Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, But counselors of peace have joy

Proverbs 12:22 - Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.

In Proverbs 6:16 - 19 -  a lying tongue is one of the seven things listed as an abomination to God, as is bearing false witness and sowing discord amongst the brethren.

Yet, the bible contains a number of instances of where lying not only happened, but the liars were blessed by God.

In John 7:8-10, Jesus appears to lie by telling his disciples that he is not going to a feast. Once they leave, he does go to the feast in disguise. There are numerous Christian apologists who will explain this, but I'm not going to expound on context or justification because many of the people who accuse Islam of promoting lying do not give Muslims the opportunity to expound, explain or justify.

Numbers 23:19 states 'God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?'. Some versions translate 'repent' as 'change His mind', so why would Jesus (God incarnate) have said one thing to his disciples and done another?

Peter, the disciple upon whom the church is built, lied about knowing Christ in order to save his own life. In Islam this would be called taqiyya. In Mark 14:66-72, Peter denies knowing Christ three times to avoid being arrested and crucified. In verse 71 he even swears: 'Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak" '. The story is recounted in the other gospels as well: Luke 22:54-62, Matthew 26:69-75 and John 18:15-18.

Although the bible is emphatic on the fate that awaits liars, Peter was the rock on which the church was built. In fact, not just the rock but he would also be given the keys to heaven. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus says to Peter: 'And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven'. Things may have turned out differently if Peter hadn't lied, yet God still saw fit to build His church on a man whose survival is directly related to lying about his relationship with Jesus.

Even Abraham, (the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), lied to save his life and his wife in Genesis 12:11-13 in which he asked his wife Sarah to tell Pharaoh that she was his sister, not his wife. God plagued Pharaoh for taking a married woman, not Abraham for lying about it. In verse 18, Pharaoh says to Abraham, 'why did you not tell me that she was your wife?'

Abraham did exactly the same thing later on in Genesis 20 in which he told King Abimelech that Sarah was his sister. Abimelech learns that she is actually married to Abraham, at which point, Abraham reveals that he is telling half the truth because Sarah is his half-sister (the daughter of his father, but with a different mother). Again, he told the lie to save his own life (verse 11 - Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife.

Abraham's son, Isaac did exactly the same thing to King Abimelech that Abraham had done. Like father, like son. In Genesis 26:6-7 - So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. And the men of the place asked about his wife. And he said, “She is my sister”; for he was afraid to say, “She is my wife,” because he thought, “lest the men of the place kill me for Rebekah, because she is beautiful to behold.”. 

Liars both, yet God blessed Abraham and Isaac.

How does Abraham and Isaac lying to save their own lives on multiple occasions, differ to taqiyya?

Isaac is later deceived by his wife Rebekah and his second son, Jacob.

In Genesis 27, Isaac is on his deathbed and asks his first son Esau to hunt some game for him and prepare savoury food from it. After this, Isaac was going to bless Esau with his inheritance as the first-born. Isaac had poor eye-sight, so Rebekah encouraged Jacob to deceive his father in order to receive the blessing that was about to be imparted on Esau. Jacob was concerned that if Abraham realised this, he would be cursed for the hoax. Rebekah then tells him to dress up as Esau. Jacob even lied about how God had helped him hunt the game so quickly (verse 20: But Isaac said to his son, “How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?” And he (Jacob) said, “Because the Lord your God brought it to me.”)

Isaac smelled a rat and asked Jacob a number of times if he was really Esau. He even felt him, but Jacob had used the skin of a goat to mimic Esau's hirsuteness. Isaac then blessed him and Esau lost his inheritance. Jacob went on to become a key figure in the bible. Esau not so much.

Isaac deceived Abraham into his inheritance.

In Joshua 2:3-6, Rahab the prostitute hides two spies from the King of Jericho. When he asks her about the location of the spies she lies: 'So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country.” Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” 6 (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.)'

Some have likened Rahab's actions to those of people in World War 2 who lied to the Nazis in order to hide Jews from their genocidal actions. Again, how is this different to taqiyya? It is lying to save lives. Would Christians lie if Nazis came to the house looking for an innocent person to kill?

The apostle Paul claims that he became 'all things to all men'. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - 'For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.  Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.'

Some Christians accuse Muslims of using taqiyya in order to win converts to Islam. Yet how are Paul's actions any different? Paul may not directly lie, but he takes on the persona of the people that he is with in order to win converts to Christ.

Not everyone gets away with lying in the bible. Ananias and Sapphira for example, lied about proceeds that they should have given to the Apostles to distribute. According to the verses in Acts 5:1-11, God struck down the couple for lying.

Both the Koran and the bible, at their core, condemn lying with the results that liars and hypocrites will face punishment.

Sura 24:7 - the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars.

Revelation 21:8 - '... all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death'.

For Islam, lying is haraam (forbidden) and is explained in detail at http://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-2-ayatullah-sayyid-abd-al-husayn-dastghayb-shirazi/seventeenth-greater-sin-lying#5-liar-accursed

To claim that Islam is a religion of lies, that it condones lying is in itself deceitful and a lie. For Christians, it is even hypocritical given the number of times that lying is at the core of critical events in the bible even though the bible also clearly states that lying is not allowed.

The church was founded on Peter, even though he lied about knowing Christ in order to save his life. Three religions are founded on Abraham who lied twice about his relationship with his wife in order to save his life.

Even today, many Christians believe in a lie that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions. The lie: Zionism. Zionism was founded on the lie of 'land without a people for people without a land'. Apart from the fact that millions have lived in Palestine for thousands of years so it was not a 'land without people'. Apart from the fact that the Europeans who stole the land had countries of their own that they already lived in (namely various European nations), so they were not a 'people without a land'. Zionist Christians idolise, almost worship, Israel. Zionism is a sub-cult of Christianity and it is a lie. Why would God send Jesus to save the Jews, crucify him, resurrect him ... if He is then going to re-establish a Christ-less Israel? Jesus was the fulfilment of prophecy, not 20^th century Israel. But why let truth get in the way of imperialism.

As has been stated in our other studies, Christians, of all people, should not be criticising Islam. Some Christians will be offended by the contents of this article, yet will have no qualms about offending Muslims by accusing Islam and the Koran of condoning lying. This is hypocritical.

Instead of criticising Islam, Christians should take the plank out their own eye. Do as Jesus commanded: love your neighbour!

--0--

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry
• Religion of Peace and Love

Was Muhammad a pedophile?

A warning! The following may offend some who read it. The point of this article is to show that attacking Islam by offensively claiming it encourages pedophilia paves the way for your own religion to be attacked with the same accusations. It is not my intention to deliberately offend or attack other religions, but it is my intention to encourage readers to be more circumspect on their own religion and to be more judicious in their approach to other religions.

In researching this, I found a number of articles that complained about how offensive it is to dare suggest that holy scriptures in Christianity and Judaism condone rape, pedophilia, sex slavery and child murder. Yes, it is offensive. However, it was interesting to note, that often those same people were happy to accuse Islam of exactly those things, in particular, accusing Islam's founding prophet, Muhammad of being a pedophile.

Matthew 7:3-5 warns against this type of hypocrisy: 'And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye. Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.'

To accuse Muhammad of being a pedophile is hypocritical and ignorant of the bible and church history. For instance, even in the Old Testament which is the basis for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, slavery and forced marriage were the norm, as was marriage of girls by the time they reached puberty. Notwithstanding this, today's Christianity is racked with accusations of pedophilia committed by the clergy.

The problem with these accusations against Islam in general, and Muhammad in particular, is that the accusers are making judgements using 21^st century culture and values, as well as twisting scripture or taking it out of context.

The accusations against Muhammad are in relation to his marriage to his third wife, Aisha. It is believed that Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was six or seven years old. She remained with her parents until the age of nine or 10 when she went to be with Muhammad, who was around 53, and their marriage was consummated.

Aisha's age is in dispute. While tradition has her aged around 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated, theories abound in which her age ranges from 9 to 19. The Koran requires marriage to be between consenting adults, and during Muhammad's lifetime adulthood for girls was achieved when they first menstruated. There is a school of opinion that she was at least 10 when she married the Prophet and probably 14 or 15 at time of consummation ⁽¹⁾.

If Aisha was pre-pubescent when they married, and if Muhammad was a pedophile surely he would have consummated the marriage on their wedding night. Why would he wait at least two years to consummate it unless there was a compelling reason? The most likely explanation is that he was waiting for her to reach adulthood as it was understood at that time. It makes little sense for him to wait two years and deflower her while she was still a child. It is far more likely that she had reached puberty by the time the marriage was consummated, so it is highly unlikely that Muhammad was a pedophile.

Accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile ignores the fact that it was culturally accepted during that time (and for centuries before and after) for girls to be married off by the time they reached puberty. This was a common practice throughout the Middle East and Europe ⁽²⁾. In the Roman Empire it was common for girls to be married even before puberty.

It is only recently that girls need to be at least 16 to marry. In 1275 in England, the first secular law was passed declaring the age of consent to be 12. Breaking this law was a misdemeanor. In 1576 the law was changed to make it a felony to have sex with a girl under 10, but it was still a misdemeanor if she was between 10 and 11. In 1791, France established the age of consent as being 11. In 1875, England raised the age of consent from 12 to 13 and breaching this law became a felony. In 1885 England again increased the age of consent, this time to 16. In some States of the USA and a number of European countries, the age of consent was as young as 10. Child marriage was common among Hindus in India, so in 1861 the British Raj set the age of consent at 10. In 1891 the Raj changed this to reflect the age of marriage being 10 and the age of consent being 12. This meant that the marriage could not be consummated until the girl reached 12. Even now, in the 21^st century the age of consent across the globe ranges from 13 to 18. ⁽³⁾

In Australia the age of consent laws range from 16 to 18, but often come with exceptions. In the Australian Capital Territory for instance, it is legal for a 10 year old to have sex if the partner is no more than two years older than them. In Queensland and Victoria, it's a defence if the child was 12 years old or older if the 'accused person believed, on reasonable grounds, that the child was of or above the age of 16 years'. Also in Victoria, it's a defence if the accused was no more than two years older than the child. In Tasmania it's a defence if the child was 15 and the accused was no more than five years older, or if the child was 12 and the accused was no more than three years older ⁽⁴⁾.

For thousands of years, the average life expectancy was significantly lower than it is now. Fewer people lived to old age and there was a very high infant mortality rate. As a result, most cultures expected girls to breed as soon as they were able to. Women didn't have the luxury that they do today of waiting until their 30s to start a family. Having babies wasn't an option they could chose if they wanted. It was a matter of survival. If a girl hadn't given birth by 15 or 16, she was already considered to be getting too old.

Accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile not only ignores the culture of the time but opens up suggestions that most people's ancestors were pedophiles.

For Christians to accuse Muhammad of being child molester is walking a dangerous line. Any number of bible passages can interpreted as condoning pedophilia. The virgins referred to in the following scriptures, would have mainly been early teen or pre-teen as most girls were married off by puberty during this time.

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

Verse 35 goes on to explain the plunder of the war included 32,000 young girls 'who have not laid with a man'. Verse 40 requires that 32 of them be given to God as a tribute which was to paid as a heave offering for the use of the priest, who in this case was Eleazor.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 - Now if the city will not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.  when the Lord your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the Lord your God gives you.  Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.

Judges 21:11-12 - And this is the thing that you shall do: You shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman who has known a man intimately.” So they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man intimately; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

Judges 21:20-23 - Therefore they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go, lie in wait in the vineyards, 21 and watch; and just when the daughters of Shiloh come out to perform their dances, then come out from the vineyards, and every man catch a wife for himself from the daughters of Shiloh; then go to the land of Benjamin. Then it shall be, when their fathers or their brothers come to us to complain, that we will say to them, ‘Be kind to them for our sakes, because we did not take a wife for any of them in the war; for it is not as though you have given the women to them at this time, making yourselves guilty of your oath.’” And the children of Benjamin did so; they took enough wives for their number from those who danced, whom they caught.

The bible could be accused of condoning sex slavery:

Exodus 21:7-10  - “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11 And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

The bible could be accused of encouraging the murder of infants and children:

Psalm 137:8-9 states 'O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!'.

Deuteronomy 20:16 - demands that 'of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive'.

While there are a number of scriptures that forbid incest between immediate family members, there are scriptures that describe a number of events in which there was sex between immediate members. Abraham for instance, married his half-sister, Sarah (Genesis 20:12 - 'But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife').

One of the cornerstone events in the bible is the immaculate conception of Jesus. His mother, Mary, was only a child when betrothed to Joseph. While the bible doesn't give her age, scholars believe she was only 12. Before she married Joseph, God sent the Holy Spirit upon her and she became pregnant without having sexual relations. Mary was a pregnant, unmarried teenager. She probably had Jesus when she was 13. Joseph is likely to have been much older than Mary as it is believed he had died by the time Jesus began his adult ministry as he is not mentioned during this time. ⁽⁵⁾ Would anyone see the immaculate conception rape or her marriage to Joseph as pedophilia? Unlikely, yet under modern laws it could be. It certainly doesn't meet today's cultural expectations of marriage, consent and conception.

In Judaism, the Old Testament scriptures above appear in one form or another in the Tanakh (which includes the Torah). In addition, the Baylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 60b states 'A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest' ⁽⁶⁾. Rabbi Singer has refuted accusations that the Talmud encourages the marrying of children, claiming the scriptures are being manipulated ⁽⁷⁾ by both Muslims and Christians. He attacks Christian and Muslim scriptures, including the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world.

The offence that Rabbi Singer has taken is understandable and is applicable to any attempt to tear down a religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity by using that religion's own scripture. The attacks by each religion on each other is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. All three can be accused of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity and of twisting each other's truth, simply by quoting each of their scriptures whether in context or not.

For every accusation against one of the three Abrahamic religions, there will be someone from that religion who will refute the accusation, usually through placing it in context ... or maybe even taking it further out of context to sanitise it. Those who attack Islam do not give Muslims the same latitude to defend themselves. Yet, if Christianity and Judaism are going to defend themselves through explanation, justification and context, Muslims should also have the same opportunity.

There are no specific scriptures in the Koran that promote pedophilia, so to accuse the religion of encouraging it is deceitful and hypocritical considering the bible verses above and the extent of pedophilia in the modern church. It is also extremely offensive to accuse Islam of this. How many Christians were offended by the use of the above scriptures to question the bible's attitude to pedophilia, rape, incest, sex slavery and child murder? Offended? Then it is hypocritical to offend Muslims by doing the same thing to them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!

Instead of attacking other religions, people should focus on their own religion and their own relationship with God.

It is easy to attack any religion and twist scriptures and events to suit whatever agenda one may have. In reality, most Jews, Christians and Muslims are abhorred by pedophilia and will condemn it regardless of the religion, race or nationality of the perpetrator. Pedophiles exist in all religions, cultures and walks of life. It is ludicrous to believe that any religion actually encourages pedophilia. Those who use the scriptures of another religion to justify hatred are themselves guilty of lying and fear-mongering.

The world would be far better off if each person took care of their own issues and stopped attacking others.

Get that damn plank out of your own eye.


References:

1. Zahid Azis, 'Age of Aisha', http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm. Accessed 28 December 2014.

2. Myriam Francois-Cerrah, 'The truth about Muhammad and Aisha'. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth. Accessed 28 December 2014.

3. Stephen Robertson, 'Age of Consent Laws', in Children and Youth in History, Item #230, http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230 (accessed 28 December 2014)

4. Australian Government, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Child Family Community Australia. 'Age of consent laws'. CFCA Fact Sheet - December 2014.  https://www3.aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/age-consent-laws. Accessed 28 December 2014.

5. Truth or Tradition? 'Mary, a Teenage Bride and Mother', as well as video by John W. Schoenheit, 'How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus'. Spirit and Truth Fellowship International. http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother. Accessed 28 December 2014.

6. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, Folio 60b. http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html#PARTb. Accessed 28 December 2014.

7. Tovia Singer, Let's Get Biblical (Part 23 of 24), 'Does the Talmud Condone Murder, Pedophilia and Idolatry'. http://outreachjudaism.org/talmud-condone-murder-pedophilia-and-idolatry/ Accessed 28 December 2014.

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry
• Religion of Peace & Love?

The Light of love and a bushel of bigotry

'Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men'.

So stated Voltaire, the enlightened French philosopher, who defended religious freedom and civil liberties. Voltaire lived in the 18th century, yet this quote is pertinent today.

For decades, the Christian church has seen a large shift to the right-wing with a corresponding rise in intolerance, religious hate speech and violence. Many fundamentalist pastors preach against homosexuality, abortion, socialism, multiculturalism while embracing doctrine that borders on idolatry, such as prosperity doctrine and Zionism.

Religious hate-speech has most recently been manifesting itself through Islamophobia with attacks on Mosques and Muslims. Women have been attacked for wearing burqas, hijabs or head coverings. There is even an attack on food with campaigns against halal certification because some believe money raised from halal certification funds terrorism. Australian political journalist, Malcolm Farr appeared on the ABC's Insiders program on 24 November 2014 and eloquently stated: 'to those pig-ignorant droogs who shut down a South Australian business because it had halal certified yoghurt selling to Emirates. What stupid, stupid people! If they really think that this money goes to terrorists, they should stop buying petrol'.

Attacking food, attacking Halal does nothing to further the Gospel. Even Romans 14:20 states, 'Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food'.

Christians who attack Islam would do well to consider Matthew 7:3-5, 'And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye. Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.'.

What plank?

Many of the same anti-Islam brigade are happy for the West to go to war against the 'infidel', whether it be in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq. Yet these wars have directly resulted in the terrorism and fundamentalism that they so fear. It's no secret that during the 1980's the USA funded and trained the Mujahideen and jihadists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Out of that arose Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Zionism, a dogmatic twisting and perversion of scripture, that claims the establishment of modern Israel as the God-given homeland of Jews. This has seen the displacement and genocide of Palestinians who lived there for thousands of years, many of whom were actually Jews who converted to Islam centuries ago. Yet Zionist Christians support the ethnic cleansing by cheering Israel's human rights violations and war-crimes, and by rewriting history to delegitimise Palestinian history and the right of Palestinians to their own land. The Palestinian Nakba and ongoing ethnic cleansing has directly resulted in attacks on Israel and the creation of terrorist groups. These groups only formed in response to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The genocide that is sponsored, supported and cheered on by Zionist Christians.

The attacks on Islam in Western nations such as Australia and Britain, is a response to fear of Islamic extremism and terrorism. It's one thing to condemn terrorism, but another to attack innocent Muslims trying to live a normal life.

Why attack the burqa? Self-proclaimed experts in Islam will state that Muslims are not required to wear burqas or head-coverings. What arrogance to tell others how they should worship. Plank/speck ... Remember that the bible does tell women to cover their heads, yet how many Christian women do so? 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 'But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered'.

Christians should know better than to be driven by fear. 1 John 4:18, 'There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love'.

Christians who preach or practice intolerance and hate are not acting in love, they are nothing but clanging cymbals. 1 Corinthians 13:1, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal'.

People respond in kind to how they're treated. Treat people with hatred & violence, they respond with hatred & violence. Show love, they respond with love ... you reap what you sow.

Francis of Assisi stated 'preach the Gospel, if necessary, use words'.

The one message from the Gospels is LOVE. Love God, Love Others. (Matthew 22:27).

If you're not loving others, you are not preaching the Gospel.

Christianity has enough issues of its own. Before attacking others with mindless, ignorant and often false allegations, clean up your own mess. Get your own life right. Live the life of love that Jesus commanded you to. Be an example to the world.

Christians are called to be tolerant of others. Romans 14 expounds on not judging others and in particular, be accountable for your own actions rather than attacking the actions of others. Verses 12 and 13 state, 'So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore'.

Rather than attacking others and opposing people we disagree with, Romans 14:19 tells us to pursue peace: 'Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another'.

Islam is the religion of peace. Christianity is the religion of love. Both religions are founded on peace and love. Who are Christians to criticise those who follow a religion founded on much of the same tenets as their own?

Matthews 5:14-16, 'Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven'.

Be the shining light of love to the world, don't smother love under a bushel of bigotry.

--0--

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and dregs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• Religion of Peace & Love?

Religion of Peace & Love?

The followers of which religion killed millions during the last century?

This week the whole world has followed the terrible bombings in Boston and the incredible after-math as the two alleged perpetrators were captured and one of them killed. The big question of course, is 'why?' Why would anyone deliberately target innocent people? Regardless of their reasons, there is no justification for their actions.

However, terrorists will often target innocent people because they see their targets as responsible for the crimes of the larger group to which they may belong, such as their religion, ethnicity or nationality. It is collective punishment ... and it isn't just the domain of terrorists.

Even before it became apparent that two Muslim men were the suspects in the Boston bombings, right-wing media and organisations, including some Christian groups, were blaming Islam in general. As far as they're concerned 'all Muslims are terrorists because the religion calls for it'.

It is with the greatest hypocrisy that they blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

There are a number of memes abounding on the internet which sarcastically ask the question 'Islam - Religion of Peace?' and then detail crimes by Muslims and blame the entire religion.

Well, if we are going to raise the issue of religion, allow me to quote the bible:

'Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone'.

One of the reasons that terrorists have targeted citizens of Western nations, and Christians in general, is because they have judged all citizens for the crimes of some Western governments. Many of these governments profess to be following Christian values, so by extension Christians are also blamed for their actions. And yes, these governments have and are committing crimes, either directly or through funding and material support of despotic regimes.

Many of these critics of Islam, will blindly support the military actions of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. So I have to ask, 'Christianity - a Religion of Peace?'

Most people will argue that military actions undertaken by their government are not in the name of Christianity. Well, not all terrorism committed by Muslims is undertaken in the name of Islam. Yet Western governments sworn in with their collective hands on the Bible, have committed gross atrocities. The actions were often undertaken in the name of Democracy and Capitalism; political ideals which are worshipped with almost religious fervour by some and certainly embraced as 'Christian' values by fundamentalist Christians.

Guess the Religion of Peace:

• detonates two atomic bombs killing 250,000 people - AFTER surrender had already been offered by Japan
• provides funding and material support for:
• genocide and war crimes against Palestinians - 1.5 million civilian victims killed since 1948 and more than 1 million displaced)
• genocide of Palestinians in Lebanon at the hands of Christian Phalangists - more than 3500 civilians killed
• genocide of Muslims and Christians in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein - more than 1 million killed
• terrorist attacks on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan at the hands of the Mujahideen and 'extremists' recruited and trained by the CIA 
• genocide of Communists and others in Indonesia at the hands of President Suharto ('one of our closest friends', according to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) - over 1 million people killed.
• genocide of Socialists in Chile - more than 3,000 killed, 80,000 imprisoned and 30,000 tortured at the hands of Augusto Pinochet. 
• calls all Muslims terrorists - there have roughly been 10,000 victims killed by 'Islamic' terrorists, while there is a total of more than 3.5 million killed in just the above activities alone by people claiming to be Christian.

Answer: Christianity 

Personally, I'd love to say the answer is fundamentalist Christianity ... or Democracy ... or Capitalism. But I can't because to apply the same rule that some people are applying to Islam means that the answer is simply 'Christianity'.  Feel like justifying it? Feel like saying it wasn't in the name of Christianity? Muslims know how you feel.

I haven't bothered mentioning Hitler in the above list, so to avoid accusations of paralipsis, I'll point out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian. We all know that Hitler was responsible for the genocide of tens of millions of people. 'I believe today that I'm acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I'm fighting for the Lord's work', so said Hitler. Of course, Hitler was stopped by numerous Armies comprised of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Communists and pretty much every other people group. But he was a Christian, nonetheless.

Following terrorist attacks, many people are understandably angry and want vengeance. They feel justified in bombing and invading the nations of others. For instance, following 9/11 the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, while many in the West, including some Christians, celebrated and boasted about their superiority. Conversely, given the millions killed by the West,  there are many who are angered, some of whom feel justified in either killing or celebrating the killing of Western civilians.

What is the difference between civilians killed at the hands of 'Islamic' terrorists or those killed at the hands of 'Christian' war machines? Not much. Both are killing innocent civilians and justifying it.

Ok, so the 'Christian' war machines generally do not mobilise in the name of Christ, although many pray before going into battle, but interestingly, Muslim terrorists are generally not doing it in the 'name' of Islam, but because they feel aggrieved. For instance, the decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine has led to a lot of animosity against Israel for perpetrating it and the United States for funding it. Palestinians are not attacking Israel in the name of Islam; they are attacking in self-defence and anger. 

There is no justification for killing civilians, regardless of whether it is in the name of religion or a political ideology.

There is certainly no justification for getting holier than thou and believing that one religion is better than another. If you believe in God and believe it is ok to kill members of another religion, ethnic group or nationality, YOU are the terrorist.

The memes that have been proliferating the internet sarcastically calling Islam the religion of peace, do nothing but spread fear and racism.  It is disturbing that Christians who supposedly have been taught to love everyone would wallow in such hatred.

Instead of retaliating with an eye for an eye, perhaps it is time to take some more sage advice from the Bible:

'How can you say to your brother, "Brother let me take the speck out of your eye", when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eyes'.

'Love your neighbour as yourself'.

Salaam, Shalom, Peace!

--0--

Other articles

This is one of a number of articles in the 'Remove the plank' series, regarding the hypocrisy of criticising Islam. Other articles include:

• Bacon and eggs - Pork wars and Christianity
• Truth and lies - Taqiyya in Islam and Christianity
• Was Muhammad a pedophile?
• The light of love and a bushell of bigotry