A Matter of Faith (x)

am treading on dangerous ground.

someone once said that when having a discourse among acquaintances, avoid topics of religion and politics. there is no greater struggle waged among men and countries in the name of politics thinly veiled with religion.

over the weekend, raw emotions have emerged among the muslim groups over a speech delivered by the current pontiff, pope benedict xvi, that purportedly quoted emperor manuel ii paleologos of the orthodox christian byzantine empire (the seat of what is now known as modern day turkey) saying:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (for those inclined, click here for a copy of the speech in pdf format, courtesy of bbc)

this is part of a discourse related to the concept of "holy war", of religion and of violence - a topic that the current pope is known to have a very strong stance. it is unfortunate that he used to make use of islam as an example for his speech.

to paraphrase one of many teachings of the Lord Jesus, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." one gets a strong sense that the discourse on violence and religion can be explored without having to make jihad and islam as an example. as a christian, i only need to practice introspection to look at how the christian faith has been propagated along the ages in equal dose of extreme violence and of the strength of the word and pen.

touching on a concept without exposing the foundation is potentially damaging and can propagate the wrong message. a lot has been said about jihad or the holy war – much of the western world and non muslims have come to associate cihad with the proclamation of terrorist groups using djehad as their tool to justify their act.

but few really understand that jehad is not just about waging war in the name of God. the greater jihad is classified as one that involves the soul, and the lesser jihad that involves the external, often physical struggle. muslim scholars identify five kinds of cihad:

• jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid (monotheism).

• jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al.

• jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
  

• jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.
  

• jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

• jihad of peace refers to the struggle to make peace in the world, everywhere and anywhere.

jihad is very much a fundamental aspect of islam along the same lines as the holy trinity of the catholic doctrines. using this framework, it is easy to understand the reaction of the muslim world that greeted the speech of the pope.

as most christians are painfully unaware, we have waged our holy wars during the ages. tell me of a country that has adopted the christian faith without the requisite invasion and persecution. this is not a question. it is the reality of which the vatican and its coffers has been built on.

christian history after the Lord Jesus is rife with crusades that were often precipitated by political and economic goals, sanctioned by the holy see and vatican. violence is part of our recorded fabric. as a religion, we have instigated nine crusades, on top of this, we have the albigensian, children’s, tatar’s, balkans, baltic and german crusades.

i strongly condemn the extreme reaction of some muslim sectors that have responded in violence over the incident. my personal belief as a christian is to resolve conflict using dialogue and negotiation. however, it does not become easy when we speak of other religions to elucidate a point – whether the intent is an intellectual discussion, we simply can not ignore that the components of faith is a rich mix of doctrine, belief and emotion. specially if the voice that speaks is one that resonates across the civilized world.

even when we apologize on the precept that our words were misinterpreted, it comes out as contrived and trivializes the reaction of the muslim world. that adds insult to the injury. i have learned through my short experience that an apology is most heartfelt when we simply say “i am deeply sorry to have caused you pain.” justifying the statement that the words were misinterpreted connotes that the injury is self inflicted and adds even more hurt.

hurt, i understand the hurt emotions of the muslim people, i can only hope that everyone can transcend the hurt, start the healing process and initiate the jihad of peace.

lest we forget, the christian faith is anchored on one act of violence that forever sealed the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ to save humanity.