A cause without a rebel

Some faces inspire a mood. I could really use a little Jimmie Dean right now, if James Dean had a cause.

I was born in 74'. I grew up in a small town in northern Nova Scotia, had the run of the place from a very young age, something that would probably mortify the children's aid today, if they only knew lol. It was a different time though, for better or worse. I remember long bike rides and coming home after dark. No one seemed worried. I remember trips to the candy store before I could write pop and picking up cigarettes for my dad while I was at it. There were sibling slights and mud fights on freshly painted walls, scraped knees and don't touch the stove while I'm gone haha. But looking back now on my growing up years, the word that comes to mind is freedom. Freedom. And I'm not glorifying it, because it wasn't all good haha. Things happen when adults aren't around. Adults are a good thing to have around sometimes. It's good to be told not to eat candy until it's coming out of your ears and it's good to be told what to do -sometimes.

But the upside of all that was that I never felt like there was anything I couldn't do. My mother worked. I always expected to work. Both of my parents worked very hard, and I learned to work hard too. And though I can recall a few moments here or there where I wondered why it said man in the hymnal and police man in the school book and if that included me as a 5 or  8 year old girl...yet those doubts seemed to be overshadowed by the critical voices that challenged old assumptions as I grew older. By the time I was in high school there were scholarships for girls who were interested in the sciences. Girls were encouraged to go into engineering. It wasn't for me but it was an option among many for girls of my generation.

When I was in my late twenties a close friend invited me to her home in India. Though it stretched my resources at the time I am so glad that I made that trip because it taught me so much. I've joked that it was like taking a ride in a blender. You grow up thinking this is what people look like, this is what food tastes like, this is what trees look like. This is the weather. This is the time zone...and then you go to the other side of the world and it's like you're blind and you've just opened your eyes for the first time. This is how people greet one another, this is the architecture. But you know, I learned something else on that trip, as a young woman from Canada who had never been told that there was something I could not do, that that's not the way it is everywhere...and I thought to myself in one of those moments, that it would be a good thing to invest energy and resources in trying to help people in other places that have limitations placed on them from birth. Limitations of gender, limitations of skin colour, limitations of social rank or disability. Disabilities that are sometimes imposed or self-imposed, and that has to tell you something, when a missing limb becomes questionable.

But I remembered that, the face of the man with a missing arm, who looked at me opportunistically, the young boy asking for a dowry for his sister, hoping for a new life in some small gesture. How confused I felt talking to him, what does a dowry have to do with you? But I came home with the understanding that I should not assume that the way it is here, is the way it is everywhere. For me looking back, it was a lesson in paradigms. And may I say something else? As a Christian living in a secular society, I feel like what I believe has been put through the wringer for years at this point. I have had to wrestle with just about every aspect of what I believe because I can't get away from it! Not that I want to get away from it, because I'm glad now that both personal friends and the culture I live in have challenged me, because it has made my faith stronger. It has stretched me as a person, and it has broadened my beliefs and how I see the world.

Having said all that, I've been chatting a lot online lately, probably a bit too much if I'm being honest. But for some reason it seems to be something that fascinates me, the intersections that we find ourselves at in the early twenty-first century where the world seems to be getting smaller and smaller. So often the things that happen seem to happen at a distance but not anymore. The other day I found myself talking with someone in Nigeria who told me that his youngest sister was one of the kidnapping victims of Boko Haram. He told me all they can do is pray. I sensed his feeling of helplessness. Small world indeed.

But for a kid who grew up in a small town where 8o plus percent of the people were Roman Catholic and the few remaining Protestants did homework until religion class was over and there wasn't a visual minority to be found at recess, a lot has changed! There was no big political divide in the 80's that I can remember. You knew whoever got in would be liberal or Tory, just like the last time. And now I find myself talking to atheists who challenge my conservatism while I'm talking to Muslims on the same day who challenge my liberalism. And they both seem to have no doubts that they are right, completely, on everything. They probably think the same thing about me, mind you, but have they ever been challenged?

Do they know what it is to twist and to writhe in the middle of the night? I wonder sometimes, when good and bad get put in such tiny little boxes, the very thing they accuse us of, everything good is secular, everything religious is bad. That's how it is, right? But when do we stop to reflect on the crosses on schools and hospitals, or what really is the line in that line of primate images, as if there was a line. Is there a line? And what does it mean, the next time one of those primate cousins gets charged with murder? Did he really have a choice, or was it just in the wiring? As for the Muslims I talk to, while they defend child marriage and polygamy, public floggings and amputations for the badly behaved...I wonder who challenges them. Certainly not us, we're too afraid to be accused of being culturally insensitive, while the concepts that ground our quality of life, created in the image of God, a little lower than the angels, are spit on and dismissed.

I am encouraged by some recent comments coming from the atheist community. I haven't sat down and listened to them, perhaps I should, but it's encouraging to me to hear things coming through the grapevine, where people seem to be finally waking up to the fact that maybe not all worldviews are the same after all. Maybe not everything is as we see it or as we assume it to be. And I encourage people to continue to ask questions, not just of ourselves, but of other cultures and worldviews as well. And I say that with some of the very bright and the very young Muslims that I talk to in mind, as well as some of the very bright and hurting people that I talk to online, who are convinced that Christianity has nothing to offer, or that our western culture has nothing that deserves to be defended. People need to be challenged. We need to challenge each other. If our worldviews cannot handle a few questions or even the occasional insult, there's something there that needs to be looked at. And to the next person who uses allegations of hate as a psychological tactic to intimidate and "phobia" as a censorship tool, you know who you are. lol. To you I say, until there is a change in your model, until you see the cause that is worth fighting for, the freedom that we enjoy in the western world, the freedom, the cause, and the world -will have to wait.



Thanks for listening,

Margaret Harvey







Image:

The end of a beginning

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Winston Churchill

I debate a bit, gets me into trouble sometimes, but it seems to be something that I'm wired to do, to think about things, to discuss things. I try to keep things above the belt, I really do. I'm human, my buttons get pushed sometimes and I've probably been known to react a time or two, but I really do try to keep an even keel and not attack people personally, even when I feel like I'm being personally attacked myself.

And it's funny, I remember years ago, struggling as I often do living as a typically polite Canadian in a politically correct climate, oh so afraid of offending someone. That's how we are, right? We Canadians are so deathly afraid of offending someone, and yet I found myself in an awkward position as a Christian, seeing my deeply held convictions chewed up and spit in my face repeatedly, and yet constantly being told by the culture that surrounded me, you do not question other people's beliefs, you dare not! All religions are the same doncha' know, it's cultural, so don't ye then therefore judge (sigh).

I'm looking out the window here as I pause for a moment. It was probably around that same time, while struggling to understand how my faith fit into things, while realizing my guilt by association, that I was listening to a local talk show host who I still miss. He's not on the air anymore. His name is Michael Harris. But I remember Harris saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that the next time someone attacks you personally, be sure to tell them to address your point first, something to that effect. And I remembered that, and I have found that to be often the case, that when people resort to ad hominem attacks it's because they are out of arguments and are grasping at straws. They don't know what to say next, and so they resort to attacking the person.

Well, recently I was having a discussion with someone and I had no idea why the person seemed to be doing this constantly over a period of days if not weeks. We would begin a discussion, which would soon dissolve into some problem or another with me personally. I think now that the anger that I was picking up on was really being directed at the far right, which I do not associate myself with politically. I'm a social conservative at heart, and probably conservative leaning, but not to the point of thinking that other people with different views or perspectives could not possibly have a point. I'm not a partisan, in short, or try not to be, and am more interested in understanding issues and discussing issues than I am in clinging to a rigid partisan position. I've also come to a place over the years more and more where I don't see the current culture wars working and am more interested in dialogue and supporting individual rights as a way to build bridges and work constructively with people whom I may not agree with (their emphasis), but I think there is commonality to be found. Unfortunately, because we are so often focused on the things we disagree on, we never get around to finding our points of commonality, or the areas where I think we could learn to work together.

But it was after one of these conversations with this individual, while in the bewilderment that followed yet another bitter personal attack and I could not seem to reason with the person for love or money (lol), while dealing with a faltering appliance and walking upstairs from the basement in attempting to do laundry in spite of the same faltering appliance, a variation on Churchill's words came to my mind with ensuing existential dread, "the beginning of the end," and it pretty much summed up how I felt in that moment. I'd always been intrigued by Churchill's famous quotation and wondered what he meant when he said those words. I paused for a moment and then continued up the stairs after deciding to look it up. The phrase was spoken by Churchill in 1942, in the middle of a world war that had followed the bloodbath of the first world war that was supposed to end wars. The Allies had just scored their first major victory under the leadership of a man who if he had not stood up to Nazi aggression, the world today might look very different. If I'm interpreting Churchill's words correctly, he seems to be saying, it's not over yet folks, but we are further than we were before. It was "the end of the beginning."

Though not entirely related, there's something about being dragged through the mud that makes one look inward. In recalling Churchill's words, I was reminded of my own beginnings, who I really am at the end of the day. The kid who always felt like I never fit in anywhere, not in school, not at home, not at work, not in church, and how it wasn't until I began working with the mentally disabled and found in a community of people what seemed to me to be a glimpse of heaven, where the last will be first and the first will be last. It reminded me that no matter what people say, or what people think, at the end of the day I am someone who found a home in the kingdom of heaven, long before I found a home anywhere else.

And that's who I remain, someone who found a home in the values of Christ, but who developed an interest in apologetics because I also found that as much as I desired to communicate something of that message, everywhere I turned I found people who couldn't hear that message because of all the baggage that Christianity has acquired in the last 2000 years. It wasn't about the sermon on the mount anymore, or love your neighbour or do unto others, as much as it had become about Crusades and Inquisitions and sexual abuse and cultural clashes and witch burnings and genocide. So whaddaya do?

You begin to dialogue with people where they are at. You begin to address their concerns, their anger, their fear, their questions. But you know what pains me? It pains me that I don't think it is all negative, Christian history that is. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the places that are considered by many to be the best places to live in the world today are historically Judeo-Christian. Why is that? I also don't think it's a coincidence, the values of altruism and service to the poor, the egalitarianism and human rights concerns of the western world. Not that we're necessarily consistent or have a perfect track record of human rights ourselves, but I do think that the secularist or skeptic must begin to address the source of those values on a purely materialistic worldview. As an article that was recently sent my way seems to highlight, in which visiting philanthropists from the west to China, found that they could not just expect wealthy Chinese individuals to care for people outside their family. That's pretty much what we should expect on a naturalistic worldview is it not? http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/10/04/turning-down-gates-buffett-philanthropy-in-china-requires-for-profit-social-enterprise

Personally, I think it's the remnant of the influence of the Bible on our culture. In quoting Christian academic Nicholas Wolterstorf, who I have heard say that when you read other ancient literature you do not see the same concern expressed for the orphan, the widow and the immigrant, as you see in the pages of the Old and New Testaments. A continual call to justice for all people, rich and poor, male and female, slave and free, the height of altruism being modeled in God himself, who offers his own life for the salvation of all of humanity. http://www.openbible.info/topics/serving_the_poor

But here's the question I come to, why is it that in a culture that claims to be all about western rationalism and the values of the enlightenment, the height of reason in world history, where people are more educated than ever before, that well-read westerners seem to have such a hard time defending their positions rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attacks that seem to have become so prevalent in the discourse of our day? Could it be that it is not so easy to argue for egalitarian principles on a naturalistic worldview? Could it be also, that while something has been lost of our spiritual heritage, something yet remains? The average person has a sense that we should care about those who are less fortunate; we should defend the rights of others, but because they don't know the foundation of those values (it's not like they are being taught to read the Bible of all things), they remain at a loss in expressing or defending the values that our human experience knows to be true, when push comes to talking louder.

And so the question remains, how really do you begin to defend altruism if everything that surrounds us is purely material, a mere competition for resources to no ultimate end? How do you begin to defend human rights or human dignity or the intrinsic worth of all human beings on a purely mechanistic worldview that continues to run down with no objective meaning? Whatever leads to human flourishing, say some. But what is human anyway, if human is a theological concept? And what are values, if values are subjective to begin with? Who decides? It's all culture, remember? Who are we to judge, one set of values over another?

May I suggest, I think it is the ultimate lack of depth of secularism as a worldview, as more and more the Judeo-Christian cultural backdrop can no longer be assumed or referenced, that results in so much of the frustration that we see in public discourse. We've cut ourselves off from any spiritual frame of reference, any kind of objective or shared meaning. So what do we do, we assume from what remains of a Judeo-Christian spiritual tradition a common value or shared ethical foundation. But how much longer can we assume in a multicultural milieu, where some people are appalled by polygamy and female circumcision or gender selective abortion and some people think it's the norm? And on what basis do we continue to assume, if every value or lack thereof is assumed to be as good as the next one? That is what I see in so much public discourse, an assumption that the other side of an issue ought to see the point in question, but what if they don't? How is one to argue otherwise without a common point of reference? And so when one side of an issue doesn't come at it from the same angle or core value the frustration becomes personal, for lack of a shared point of reference to appeal to or to motivate the listener.

I have noticed in my discussions with Muslims, more specifically, and I say that simply because I find myself in what you might call inter-religious dialogue with Muslims quite a bit these days. They seem to have different points of reference and a different scriptural authority which has come to form the cultural backdrop of the Muslim world. The thing that puzzles me so much in these discussions, generally speaking of course, is what appears to be an inability or unwillingness to question much of Islamic history and practice. I don't understand this as a westerner, but I have a running theory which can best be described in asking, how far can you go in critiquing a worldview that is totalitarian in nature? If everything relates to the whole of an ideology in some way because it can't be separated and demands submission to it's higher authority in all matters of personal life and politics, where is the room for criticism?

I think there is something about the way in which Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world, that has allowed Christians to begin to see the complexity of questions regarding minorities or separation of church and state or other issues for what they are, complex. We can look back and say yeah, maybe that wasn't such a good idea or maybe we need to do some things differently. But how do you begin to do that if many of those actions or cultural practices are rooted in the example or teaching of your founder, who is seen as the ideal person and role model as in the case of Muhammad to Islam? Also, how do you begin to recognize the rights of the individual as separate from the state if the place of the individual is in submitting to the governing totalitarian ideology, as in Islam, whether the person then submitting to the Islamic state is Muslim or not?

In nearing close here, maybe I've asked more questions than I've offered answers or solutions, but I do think these are relevant questions as more and more we have competing worldviews in the western world. Surely there are challenges that accompany a growing diversity of worldviews, but just as surely there is a growing opportunity for dialogue and an exchange of ideas as never before. And that is my hope in a changing world, that regardless of our differences we still have the freedom to communicate in the western world, thankfully. And that remains the nature of a free society, as I occasionally remind myself, where we are free to agree or disagree, free to offend each other and free to change our mind or apologize when appropriate.

In acknowledging this growing diversity, I accept that I should not expect a sort of homogeneous recognition of our western spiritual heritage in a formal or political sense. I'm not asking for that on an institutional level to be very clear. I say this because where I see people asking or demanding an institutional Christianity I see political polarization which is what I'm trying to get beyond here. Yet having said that I wonder if there is a way in which there can be a sort of informal understanding of that which our Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage has given us, as a way of maintaining core values in our culture. It does seem fair to ask, why does it seem to be considered an affront to make mention of the Bible or to quote the Bible, where I doubt it would be deemed offensive to quote other sacred literature in a related discussion of ethics or tradition. Is quoting the Bible that different from quoting Shakespeare or Aristotle in public discourse, for surely the Bible has had as much if not more influence on western culture as have the Greeks or Shakespeare in that sense. I do find myself wondering, if we are not free to make reference to our western spiritual traditions, even on a cultural level, where do we go from here?

I'm sure there are lots of people who think that we do have common values in the west, and I agree that I see this in my daily life as well. There's still some assumptions about the way things ought to be hovering in the air. But I also wonder if this sense of shared values is eroding, when I think about the culture I remember growing up in, where I can't imagine anyone objecting to the singing of O Canada for example, or when I listen to a speech of Winston Churchill vs. the animosity and polarization that I see today which seems to be increasing rather than lessening. Nothing is simple, but if I am right in thinking that our historical Biblical values of concern for the poor and a sense of personal responsibility to a holy God are not just the way of the world, what will happen when those values are erased for good, or any memory of those once largely shared values? I suppose human history will returns to it's roots, conquest and defeat. Privilege and oppression. Hierarchy. The natural order of things.

Maybe that sounds a bit alarmist, all things considered, but in concluding, as much as I know it's not the end, because I believe in the presence of something bigger in all this, nor is it so much the end of the beginning as in the way that Churchill was expressing in his time... I do find myself wondering sometimes if our present culture's insistence on destroying every last recognizable trace of our spiritual heritage is the beginning of an end, or the end of a beginning. A beginning that started so long ago, in a people who understood that it wasn't so much about reason, that was Athens, or glory, that was Rome. It was about the relationship of a people to a Holy God, who insisted on a higher standard. As much as I know we haven't always lived up to that standard, I believe that spiritual history has given us a foundation for our culture, for ethics, for service, for the value of the individual person, created in God's image. Reason, in contrast, doesn't necessarily lead you to morality, a consistent standard or expectation of behavior. That would require a fixed point of reference, an end for the beginning.


Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey

Links:

transcript: "The end of the beginning" speech:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/1941-1945-war-leader/987-the-end-of-the-beginning

audio: "The end of the beginning" speech: Winston Churchill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPMw6vuhV-4



Image: Winston Churchill

       

Coca Cola jihad Classic

Intro:

Make sure your words are sweet because you might have to eat them is a little saying that comes to mind as I finish up this piece (lol). I have been wracking my brains on this one for weeks at this point, really struggling, trying to find a balance in looking at Islam. So, if you think I'm on the right track here or if you think I'm missing something, feel free to respond....perhaps I should take comfort in the fact that many others are asking similar questions. I just ask that you keep in mind that my blog is intended as reflective and constructive, a means of dialogue, and is not directed at individuals. I welcome your thoughts....


I grew up in the 80's. Well, more specifically my memories of growing up would span from the mid to late seventies through the early nineties. I started school at the age of 5 in 79' and started high school in 1989, so I'm generation X. It's hard to believe it's been that long; I was in such a hurry to grow up and now I'm wondering where the time went. Maybe I should check some of what I recall here on that note (haha) but be patient with me on this one. I'd like to walk you through a few memories of mine and I'm going to pull together a few thoughts toward the end.

First in my series of recollections, I can remember walking to the candy store as a little kid and what it was to fill myself with what I would now call junk, right before lunch, before I ever had a thought of diabetes or cavities or being overweight, which unfortunately in my case has been a life long struggle. So though I'm reformed now in my middle age and scarcely touch soda or fizzy candy or peppermints anymore, I can still remember what candy stores looked like not that long ago. I can remember the shelves filled with candy cigarettes and licorice and lollipops and paper candy which I think actually tasted like paper but I think I liked it because they called it candy haha. What's in a name, eh? I can remember that chips cost 35 cents and that pop or candy bars were 40 cents a piece and how I could ask my father for a quarter and he would take out his wallet which was on a long chain and hand me exactly one shiny quarter. "Is that all you need" he would ask gently and I would assure him that it was before I ran to the bus station just around the corner at the age of 4 to fill a little paper bag with penny and 5 cent candy.

I remember also the old Coca Cola pop bottles and how you had to be careful so as not to drop one on your toe, but also knowing that if you were smart you could return it for a refund, which would mean more money for candy. I remember when Coke was just Coke; it wasn't complicated. No one thought about it all that much, but that was about to change as some would recall, when they did something unprecedented, Coke became Coke, and they told us it was new! Do you remember that? There must have been a terrible outcry because they soon changed it back, saying that Coca Cola would now be called Coca Cola Classic to comfort their classy customers but they would keep the new taste too because some insisted they liked the new better. I remember hearing all this on the news at the time. Everyone would be happy, new and old, they were quick to tell us.

That was 1985. Fast forward a few decades; I'm now married, middle-aged and overweight, and I rarely give my kids pop. I tell them that sugar makes you chubby and puts holes in your teeth. They repeat this back to me which assures me that they're getting the message, though I'm not as strict as some where sugar is concerned. I'm somewhere in the middle on most things but I don't want my kids to struggle with being overweight as I have. It is surprising to me though, when I get to thinking about it to find myself at an age where I'm realizing I'm not the kid anymore. I didn't see it coming, honestly, but I'm now old enough to suddenly realize that the points of reference that I grew up with will not be the same touch points that my kids will remember.

I can remember when computers were new, when commodore 64's appeared in my elementary school seemingly out of nowhere. Let me think, that would have been 85'-86' or so. I was in grade 6 in rural Nova Scotia and was so scared to touch them for fear they might blow up. My kids have no such fear, they've been using a mouse to play little cat and mouse games since they were 4. I remember when microwaves, VCR's (what's that you may ask), phones that moved around so much you could never find them were all new. The other day I was looking at a picture book with my two year old and found myself wondering if he recognized that big black box with legs that was a fixture in the center of the living room when I was growing up. Can you guess what it was called? So, it's easy for me to believe that the same sort of thing happens and has happened with previous generations and in other cultures, things are changing more and more, especially since the industrial revolution, when everything began to move at fast train speed.

While keeping those thoughts in mind, a few years ago now, I remember my husband commenting to me that I am very Protestant in how I think. I was a bit surprised at the time and had never realized that until he mentioned it, having been raised in a cultural Catholic family. It's those early years that leave such an impression on us. I remember going to the Cathedral in the little town where I was raised (before the age of 9 when we moved to the country) and being awestruck by the stain glass windows and the painted ceilings, the pictures of Jesus with his shepherding stick and his little lambs. I remember the pillars that lead forward toward the suffering Jesus on the lonely cross, the centrepiece on the alter. I remember even as an infant if you can believe it, trying to lift my head to see where that glorious (organ) sound was coming from, the balcony behind the last pew with the voices that carried forward to where the people were sitting. But as much as those early years and the memories of my first communion in my long dress and my first confession with my first penance left an impression on me, it was later at a Protestant summer camp that I was really challenged to think about what I believe. It was there that my faith became personal and intense and very real. So, my husband is probably right when he says I think like a Protestant, having there learned to read the Bible and get back to the sources to understand the roots of my Christian faith. 

Which brings me to the last stop in my string of recollections. I remember the morning of 9/11, waking up on that beautiful late summer day, thinking "this is my day off baby" and going upstairs to where my then, older landlady was sitting and eating breakfast. I thought she'd lost it and was speaking in metaphors through her soft Jamaican accent when she told me that America was burning. But there on the television, to quickly confirm what she was saying was the proof. I would be glued to a screen in a stupor that entire day, trying to make sense of what I saw in front of me. Like a lot of other people, I had never really given much thought to Islam. It was just another religion that differed from my own. But in the years that have followed 9/11, I have continued to try to make sense of the clash of civilizations that we see before us. But what would a Protestant do, keeping in mind my husband's observation about how I think, in trying to understand Islam? What do you think I did? Yes of course, I went back to the sources. I began reading the Koran and I did what any student of history would do. I began to read and contemplate Islamic history.  

Let me just pause for a moment here and tell you something about myself before continuing. I've learned over the years to take things with a grain of salt. There's always more to learn and so I try to keep a beginner's mind. I try to be open to something I may not have seen, or may not have understood well enough, but having said that, when I read the Koran, I don't see moderate Islam, I see radical Islam. When I look at Islamic history, when I look at the life of Muhammad and the decades and centuries that followed the teachings of Muhammad and his influence, I realize that the Crusades didn't come out of nowhere as is commonly assumed. They were a late reaction to an insurgency that had been ongoing for centuries, largely unprovoked. I have no interest in defending everything that happened during the Crusades, please know that, but to gain a better understanding of why they happened we must also look at a history that is largely ignored, the rise of Islam and the four centuries that lead up to 1096 during which two thirds of the then Christian world was lost. Nobody mentions that, do they? http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm#.U2O5VPldXDs

So, what we are seeing is not new. What is relatively new is the western world's dominance on the world stage, so much so that we've been able to forget the reality of what it must have been like to live during the rebuilding of the western world after the fall of Rome and how if it had not been for Charles Martel heroically stopping the Arab invaders in France, western history may have looked very different. And that is why 9/11 was a shock to most of us, in our affluence and our relatively new dominance, we'd forgotten our history, replaced by a guilt complex that may be deserved, but in my humble opinion says more about our Judeo-Christian collective conscience than it changes the norms of human history, conquest and defeat. So honestly, if I was going to look at Muhammad alongside Napoleon or Attila the Hun or Alexander the Great I would have to say that I agree, he was a great leader, surely he was. But I don't judge Muhammad alongside historic military leaders, I judge him alongside Jesus because that's the line he claimed to be in, correct? Muhammad claimed to be more than a military leader, much more. He claimed to be the greatest of prophets and on an Islamic worldview he is revered as the ideal man.

And here's where I sigh and pause in my own thoughts because as much as I struggle as a Christian because the Crusades, which I believe were defensive wars, largely unsuccessful defensive wars at that, are thrown at us again and again as an example of where we too went wrong...and I have to agree, there were wrongs committed during the crusades. But notice my reluctance to denounce the Crusades outright as is often done because every ounce of my common sense tells me that the Crusaders response, at least initially, was reasonable given the circumstances. Again, I think the Crusades were defensive in nature and I think we have forgotten that we were the underdogs at that time in history. We fail to understand this because we think of Christianity as powerful and western and we wonder what westerners were doing in Jerusalem, but Christianity was not limited to the western world as is presently assumed. The western church was responding to a cry for help from the Eastern Roman Empire that continued long after the fall of Rome in the west. So, in thinking about the Crusades, the human being in me asks, would we wait 400 years, or until two thirds of our territory was lost to respond to an invading power? Would we? I don't think we would, and that is why I think it is unreasonable when the Crusades are thrown at us again and again without a thought for that historic reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Empire

But having said that, I have often thought too, that perhaps the reason why Christians often end up looking so bad is because Jesus looks so good. In other words, it is not my common sense that calls me to a higher standard, it is rather the pages of the New Testament and the words of Jesus that command me to love my enemy, regardless of my circumstances. Crazy, isn't it, and yet there it is. That Jesus wasn't very practical (lol), thankfully, but the Crusades remain a deep stain on Christian history alongside the many other stains that have so negatively affected our witness of the Gospel. So in summary, were they a just war? I'm inclined to think so. Were atrocities committed, certainly there were, but that was not the objective. The objective was defensive. Were they disorganized, often. Were there hooligans along for the walk that did a lot of damage? Yes. Was the leadership itself inconsistent, I'm inclined to think so. Yes and yes again, but the thought that keeps coming back to me that won't let me go is that the Crusades were not consistent with the teachings of Jesus who called his followers to a higher standard, who taught that his kingdom is not of this world, that our battle is not with flesh and blood.

So, we haven't always lived up to it, that part is true, but the core difference I see between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Muhammad or the Koran is that Jesus did not advocate violence. As much and as often as I hear Muslims say that Islam is peaceful, I have a hard time squaring that claim with the example of the life of Muhammad and the historical record of early Islam. Am I missing something? Maybe I am, but it seems like more moderate Muslims stress the earlier Meccan verses of the Koran and less moderate Muslims emphasize the later verses and the example of Muhammad's later life. But who's to say who is right? I have racked my brain trying to think of what I am missing here but what I keep coming back to is this. What is to stop a Muslim from reading the verse of the sword (which according to some abrogates earlier more peaceful verses) and taking it at face value? If this is the command of Allah who only loves observant Muslims and this is also the example of the seal of the prophets...add to that the constant threats of hell and damnation that seem to be all through the Koran and the knowledge on the part of the Muslim that they are never sure of their salvation unless they die on the battlefield....hearing Allahu Akbar in the news alongside another bombing starts to make a lot of sense. But maybe I'm missing something. Context perhaps? Well (shrug), I find the Koran often lacks context itself, which only adds to the difficulty. (Sigh).

In wrestling with this piece I had an opportunity to speak with a Muslim leader who was clearly a wonderful person, I mean that, and I asked him honestly saying, "I don't see what you see when you talk about Muhammad." He responded that there is "a time for things, that some of those things may have been for that time, that we need to keep context in mind, and that I need to learn Arabic to properly understand the Koran," which makes me wonder how many Muslims are reading the Koran if 85% of Muslims are not Arabs. http://islam.about.com/od/muslimcountries/a/population.htm Interestingly, he also said that he saw Muhammad as "practical." 

I think he was practical too. I think he used diplomacy to amass his personal power base and when that didn't work he used force. In giving Muslims a chance to respond to that view of their history, a Muslim told me that Muhammad had tried to peacefully engage people for years before taking over Mecca. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that Muhammad used force to build a "community," in the words of another Muslim. If I shut the doors to a meeting and don't let anyone out but on my terms, is that community? I don't know about you but I lived in a community for a time in my early twenties and I remember the founder telling us that we could leave at any time. He wanted us to know that, adding that a community can become a cult. And that's just it, that's what doesn't sit right with me about Islam: if there is no compulsion in religion as claimed, people should be free to come and go, and they're not. It's the Hotel California of world religions.

A related question concerning Muhammad's process of leadership and building his following, is when did Muhammad focus on getting his theology right? If someone were to say to me, Marg, you're wrong, I'd want to go back and check my sources, wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone with integrity? So, when did Muhammad learn to read so he could read the Bible to be sure he was being consistent with the tradition from which he claimed origin? Instead, he went away and built an army, am I correct? I said that recently to a Muslim, got myself in trouble as you might expect and he basically responded that Muhammad was justified. He tried for years, and tried and tried, right? Okay, but how does that not assume that he was right in the first place, and how does that prove Muhammad's consistency with the Jewish and Christian traditions? 

Also, in affirming Muhammad's use of force, how does that not provide a basis for a radical Muslim to use force today based on their prophet's example? And that's what I see, radical Muslims who believe that they are justified in defending themselves or propagating their worldview. I think it is obvious that in some ways Muhammad must have been a very gifted military and political leader, very strategic, but that is not the test of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Might does not make right for it's own sake. Being consistent with the character of God and the teachings of that tradition are the test. And if that consistency is there, why now do Muslims find themselves needing to say that the Bible has been "corrupted" despite it's earlier date, and without sources I should add. Why also do Muslims so often find themselves in the position of having to defend Muhammad's actions and character? Interesting questions, are they not? So, as hard as this is to talk about, and as much as I have struggled in writing this, I simply don't see how a modern Muslim can unequivocally denounce violence without also denouncing Muhammad and his earliest followers and in so doing dismiss the foundations of their own beliefs. 

But it was just for that time! How do we know? Maybe it was just for that time, but how is that not interpretive? Why is it not equally viable to conclude based on Allah's own divine word and the Prophet's actions that violence is acceptable to defend and to protect and to bring in Allah's Kingdom? The fact remains that Muhammad was not just a religious figure but was a political and military figure as well. The lack of separation of politics and religion on an Islamic worldview and the open-ended style of the Koran itself lead me to believe that the bombings and the suicide missions that we are seeing around the world are not an aberration. I see no reason to think that they are being inconsistent with the teachings of Islam when the origins of Islam involved both political and military campaigns. In short, I think these are the "back to the sources" students of Islam. I think these are the people like myself, who desire to be true to their beginnings, true to the Koran, true to the later actions of their prophet. As much as I appreciate Muslims who are trying to reinterpret Islam in a modern light, what can I say, I can't ignore what is written on the page and the actions of Islam's greatest prophet. Despite the best intentions of many of Islam's followers, I am left with ambiguity and the lack of a central authority in Islam to dictate otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

But that's not the average Muslim, Marg. I know that's not the average Muslim, dear friends. I know it's not 85 percent of Muslims, for the record. And that's why it is gut-wrenching, and that is why I've struggled so much in writing this. How do you say what you really think about Islam and yet be fair to the wonderful Muslims that I see all around me? How do you be honest, yet respectful? That's what I find myself wrestling with these days, the thing that me and Erasmus and Martin Luther have in common, when applied to Islam does not lend a pretty picture but I don't want to impose that view on the people I know that do not fit that picture either. So back to my opening analogy, in trying to find a balance here. I think that armed struggle is Coca Cola classic Islam, that's where I'm at with it, but I don't think the average Muslim is drinking Coca Cola classic if you follow my meaning. I think the average Muslim is drinking Coca Cola zero or diet or cherry or vanilla, anything but Coca Cola Classic. And who am I to say, "hey kid, you know that stuff you're drinking? That's not real Coca Cola." Having said that, if statistics such as these are accurate, it is certainly cause for concern. (Sigh).
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/02/what-the-muslim-world-believes-on-everything-from-alcohol-to-honor-killings-in-8-maps-and-4-charts/

I remember one day I was outside watching my little boy and a Catholic neighborhood friend of mine was out walking her dog and somehow we got talking and I remember her commenting "you know Marg, Islam is a lot like Christianity" and the Protestant in me wondered what on earth she was talking about, but having thought about it since then, I think I get it. If I go back far enough in my memory to when I was a little girl, I remember the traditional prayers on the traditional beads and the traditional holidays with the traditional sacraments, all without ever being taught to read the Bible, and I think she's right, Islam is a lot like Christianity, in a traditional sense, when you ignore the books in question. But I think that for a lot of Muslims around the world, that's the Islam they know, their culture and their traditions which are centuries removed from Muhammad and the conquests of early Islam. As much as the Protestant in me wants to dig and get to the truth of what the Koran teaches, I have to respect that for most Muslims around the world, the cultural traditions and practices are what they know. So, it makes sense that the average Muslim would be bewildered and offended that we would think it means something more than it does to them. Faith, prayers, fasting, pilgrimage, giving. Many of the same pillars that when I squint my eyes and look off -I remember...

In nearing end, when I think about the whole person, the Billion and some Muslims that are all individuals, I know I need to tread carefully. Religion interacts with culture, and religion is deeply personal. From what I have heard, Hinduism wasn't even called Hinduism, it was just everyday life in India until the British came along and gave it a name. And so it is true, religion interacts with culture and evolves alongside that culture and so Islam does not look the same in Asia or the west as it did in 7th century Arabia. But I don't want to stop there because I think the reality is that we are also being confronted with Coca Cola jihad classic, people who want to get back to their roots, Islam style, back to the example of the prophet and the early centuries of Islam. And so we're left with the question, how do we balance cultural Islam with the reality of a threat to our security that is very real and very foundational? And how do we balance respect for the individual Muslim and their personal experience, with a healthy dialogue and a healthy constructive criticism? 

Well, maybe that's where my memories of the 80's might again come in handy. I remember the last years of the cold war. I remember Sting asking if Russians love their children too, and being a child myself, I could never figure out if it was intended as critical of Russians or the west. But one thing is for sure, we didn't have a kind view of what lay behind the iron curtain, they were "Godless and cold." But is it not also a fair question to ask, would history have been different if we had never been able to question communism, or if communist countries themselves had never been given any room to eventually question communist theory and practice? Also, when we questioned communism, was that to put down everyone who lived under communism, who suffered under communism or was it simply to acknowledge the shortcomings and injustices of communist systems of government in those places? I fear that we are losing the ability to discern, what is criticism of an ideological system, and what is criticism of the individual person? Also, because we have this idea of Islam being a religion, and all religions are the same doncha' know, you can't criticize Islam (though no one seems to hesitate to question what I believe but that's a whole other discussion). The fact is, Islam is more than a religion. Islam is a way of life that "cannot be separated" in the words of a Muslim friend of mine, and so Islam is also a political and legal system when fully implemented. 

I see parallels between communism and Islam as political systems. Arguably, both are totalitarian governing systems when implemented. Both are arguably Christian heresies, promising heaven and putting you through hell to get there. I can say that because I know they think I'm a heretic too so I figure that makes us even (haha). Both see violence as a means to an end, in short. But much like I feel for people who suffered under communist regimes, I also greatly empathize with people, especially women and children, who are suffering under Islamic political states. Is that hate? Surely that is empathy! But it disturbs me greatly that our present culture does not allow for criticism of Islam, on grounds of having this vague assumption that all religions teach the same thing. What religion teaches is one question, whether there is room for separation of religion and state and minority rights is quite another. But we can't say that, can we? Without the freedom to criticize, how will anything change? How will female circumcision stop? How will the marriage of little girls stop? How will the public humiliation of women and the killing of apostates stop? How will the suffering of minorities in Islamic states stop?

So, in conclusion, this has been an intensely difficult piece to write.  I apologize if my words offend, but please know that I respect Muslims as people, very much so. This is not intended as a criticism of individuals, but rather as a criticism of an ideological system. In support of the individuals who I know are out there, who are suffering under Islamic governments or politically Sharia influenced states, and the people with fatwas on their heads for speaking out and the many many more who are afraid to speak out....let's continue this discussion. For the person also whose violence is toward a religious end, I want to talk to you, I want to get to know you, because I know you care about truth and I would like to challenge your historical assumptions about Jesus. I would like to challenge the Koran's view of Jesus and Christianity because I know that Jesus claimed more, promised more and showed us a better way. Love your enemies, bless and pray for those who persecute you, overcome evil with good, turn the other cheek and walk that extra mile. Jesus commands it. Jesus lived it. It's not ambiguous. Jesus left no room for ambiguity so put away the sword, Christian and Muslim. Finally, for the person out there who sees Islam as a religion of peace, and for those like me who are skeptical of such assertions or statements of faith, but love and desire to support Muslims as individuals...let's have a conversation and know that I respect your right to your own experience and your own perceptions. You tell me, and I'll tell you, and you can tell me again, -what's the real thing?

Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey

Related links:

Coke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

The Rise of Islam:

http://exploretheed.com/RiseIslam.asp

http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/cim6.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-christianity-face-to-face-with-islam

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

http://www.meforum.org/3182/history-muslim-conquests

http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210/lecture-15

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Early_Islamic_Conquests.html?id=Mq8VAAAACAAJ

http://www.economist.com/node/9433846

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2848272?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104098675733

http://www.historytoday.com/eamonn-gearon/arab-invasions-first-islamic-empire

http://faculty.washington.edu/brownj9/LifeoftheProphet/Centralized%20Authority%20and%20Military%20Autonomy%20in%20the%20Early%20Islamic%20Conquests-Donner.pdf

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Byzantium-Early-Islamic-Conquests-Walter/dp/0521484553

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/middle1/section5.rhtml

http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/ispage.htm

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/22/a-timeline-of-islamic-expansion-in-the-dark-ages/

http://history-world.org/islam4.htm

http://people.opposingviews.com/spread-islam-through-trade-conquest-5046.html

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_Arab_Conquests.html?id=QNsCPOnTfhoC

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/features/the-jihad-blog-what-the-muslim-conquests-mean-today_19964

Military career of Muhammad: 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/396226/Muhammad/251798/The-early-battles

http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm

Abrogation:

http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur'an

Documentaries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LorhdNH1C34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhQkIFdEKU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdp3v9feoSA

Sira: Life of Muhammad

https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume

Koranic support for peace:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/peace-and-love-in-quran-list-of.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?36693-Verses-of-Peace-in-the-Holy-Q-uran

http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html

Koranic support for violence?

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Defensive-or-offensive-Jihad-History-exegesis-vs-contemporary-propagation-343597

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

http://mostintolerantreligion.com/2012/05/22/is-there-any-peaceful-verse-in-quran/

Image:

Eagles: Hotel California

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgyfn_eHfoo