The Face of Evil?
by Motte Brown on 04/17/2007 at 4:33 PM
My immediate thought was, It's an Islamic Jihadist. Who else would want to kill so many innocents?
In the aftermath of heinous acts like yesterday's Virginia Tech massacre, I inevitably look for someone or something to blame. And an ideology bent on killing innocent Americans would allow me to bring some sense to the senseless. But often, there's nothing to make sense of.
I think it's also why everyone wants to see a picture of the killer. We think, There's probably something telling about the way he looks. But despite the likely headlines, "The Face of Evil," that will accompany his photo, it's usually someone who looks just like us.
While we're grieving and praying with the rest of the country for the families of those lost, we're receiving more information about the gunman. Maybe we'll find some answers there. We're hearing he was a loner, a jilted lover, and that there were "warning signs."
But really, after it's all out, we'll probably be left with nothing that will reasonably explain this mass murder. At least, no reasonable explanation from the world's perspective. What happened, however, reminds me of Solomon's words about life and death found in this passage of Ecclesiastes:
For a man does not know his time. Like fish that are taken in an evil net, and like birds that are caught in a snare, so the children of man are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.
But thankfully, that isn't where it ends. It ends with the hope found in Jesus Christ from John 16:33:
In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart: I have overcome the world.
1. Ashley said the following at 4:52 PM on Apr 17:
Wow. I don't know if I should commend you for your openness in expressing it or critique you for the way your initial statement reflects on Islam. That snap judgment seems akin to me as someone making the immediate assumption that someone who coldbloodedly begins killing doctors who preform abortions, or homosexuals must be "one of those fanatical evangelical Christians." Ouch.
Other than that, an insightful blog post.
2. Jonathan from Illinois said the following at 5:26 PM on Apr 17:
I don't see anything wrong with Motte's post. "Islamic Jihadist" pretty specifically refers to the terrorists who expressly want to kill us. Are there any peaceful, freedom-loving jihadists?
3. Lyndsay said the following at 5:31 PM on Apr 17:
To be fair, Brown admitted that tagging the killer as an "Islamic Jihadist" was the "immediate thought." The blog post was about looking for evil in the places we think we expect to find it. It's unfortunate, but in this day and age, our minds often jump to that particular profile since the news is filled with so many faces of evil who fit that profile. Is it fair? No. It's our flawed human nature to identify the threat for the sake of our own survival. Brown did say that when we do find the face of evil, we're shocked to realize that it's someone just like one of us. Because we are all sinners, evil still resides in each and every one of our hearts. Though we may try to fit a face to the killer - any killer - evil can't be profiled; that was Brown's point, I thought.
4. Mandi said the following at 5:35 PM on Apr 17:
Ashley, how can you compare Motte's initial reaction with assumptions made about people who kill abortionists and homosexuals?
That kind of a comparison is only valid if your operating assumptions are that Islam does not command the killing of "infidels", and that Christianity allows the killing of sinners (where would we all be if it did?).
Any Christian, evangelical or not, who kills an abortionist or a homosexual, does so in VIOLATION of the tenets of Christianity, as clearly delineated by the Holy Bible and the Early Church which canonized the Books therein. The same cannot be said about jihadists that kill. If you refuse to believe that, then you are imposing upon the Koran tenets that you would prefer it had, not ones that are there, written in black and white (and more obvious and indisputable if read in Arabic).
5. Blair said the following at 5:52 PM on Apr 17:
Motte- Thank you for posting John 16:33. I heard a lot of bad news yesterday and the only thing I can find hope in is the promise that one day Christ will return and evil will be no more.
6. Elena said the following at 6:01 PM on Apr 17:
Motte, props to you for following God's prompting to post this.
The phrase that comes to mind to me is the usual suspects. In our attempts to make sense of atrocities like this, we think about the things that influence people for evil purposes and then we look to those categories of people more likely to be controlled by those influences. Isn't it so telling that we do this? We still try to understand evil as existing only in a certain set of parameters, and we try to justify ourselves according to those same parameters.
Aren't we akin, in our fleshly hearts, to the Pharisee who contrasted himself against all those "sinners" and prayed loudly that he was glad he was not like them?
In our comments about trying to explain what would make this young man want to murder, there is an inherent thread of Not me. I wouldn't do that. I don't have it in me. But we do.
If it weren't for grace... if it weren't for the blood of Jesus... if it weren't for God's restraining hand... each and every one of us could have been that young man.
7. m Castillo said the following at 7:13 PM on Apr 17:
How sad, he was such a lost soul. Evil? Yes, but he needed God and so did all the people that died. The intervarsity chapter has been going around comforting people.
8. NeedACatchyName said the following at 7:25 PM on Apr 17:
Wow...
I was going to say something about this, but I don't think there's any way that I could have summarized it better than Elena's post on April 17 at 6:01pm. Very insightful...
9. Leah said the following at 7:28 PM on Apr 17:
I'm guessing most people here don't even know what jihad is. It is NOT "holy war", it simply means "struggle"- which, for extremists, turns into a holy war.
And really, why automatically think it was a muslim who did it? Was Columbine done by a muslim? What about the amish school house massacre? What about Port Arthur? (if Americans are even aware of that- shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, AUS in 1996, 35 people killed). What about the Killeen Luby's incident? No, no, no and no.
Jonathon, you said ""Islamic Jihadist" pretty specifically refers to the terrorists who expressly want to kill us. Are there any peaceful, freedom-loving jihadists?" I'm sure there are. Why haven't we heard about them, you ask? Well, why would the media talk about it? There's no story there.
Mandi, you said "Any Christian, evangelical or not, who kills an abortionist or a homosexual, does so in VIOLATION of the tenets of Christianity,... The same cannot be said about jihadists that kill." Well actually, it can. The Koran forbids the killing of innocent women and children. The jihadists who kill are in violation of this section of the Koran, but of course they'd argue their way through loopholes (like the infidel command).
You then say if anyone disagrees with you "then you are imposing upon the Koran tenets that you would prefer it had, not ones that are there". Well excuse me, but I'd rather you didn't tell me what I was doing. I don't prefer the Koran to have any kind of tenets. I've talked to a number of Muslims-turned-Christians or Christian evangelists to Muslims (so have done a reasonable amount of study of Islam) and they all say the same thing. Perhaps they're imposing tenets upon Islam that they'd rather it has?
10. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 8:08 PM on Apr 17:
President Bush's remarks today at Virginia Tech are some of his best in a long long time.
Cho Seung-Hui immigrated from South Korea to America for an education. An education he got.
Moving across the Pacific, he learned the cheapness of life. He learned that killing 900,000 fetuses every year with the aid of the state is liberating, he learned to accept being coerced to remit taxes to mess with human embryos, he learned it's fine for judges to order feeding tubes removed from living people.
Cho Seung-Hui came from Korea and learned that human life is not anything special, exactly what millions of Americans learn. He's a mess, but he's a made in America mess.
11. Mark said the following at 8:11 PM on Apr 17:
This senseless killing has reminded me of the classic quote: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Those who desire to understand why he did what he did need do no more than look in the mirror. As Sherlock Holmes said, "There but for the grace of God go I."
I would also add an interesting side note that is more general than this particular instance. I am reminded of an instance in the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape is counseling Wormwood to keep his man's mind off death. It is much more palatable for us to die when we are not preparing for it. But when something like war or this sad event happens, it should prompt intense reevaluation of one's conduct and eternal destination. Even in the midst of darkness, there can be light if this is one part of the outcome. I pray that it is.
12. Liz - Australia said the following at 8:54 PM on Apr 17:
You say there is no "worldly" reason for this, but I disagree.
One of the key reasons this happens over and over again in America is your "right" to bear arms.
Enough said.
13. Mandi said the following at 9:02 PM on Apr 17:
Jonathan from Canada, thank you for sharing the President's remarks. And it's sad, but true what you say about him learning about the lack of value of human life that he learned about in America. In fact, even in countries where terrorism is alive and well, people know not to kill their unborn children, their elderly, their ailing.
Elena, you hit it on the nail. It could have been any of us, as much as none of us would like to think about that. That's a frightful thought. But it shouldn't be, if we keep ourselves grounded in the knowledge that without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5), not even good. All of us go through times of lonliness, rejection, and whatever it was that overcame this troubled young man. We do well to remember we're not better than him, as much as what he did was wrong.
It is very sad that this young man chose to take his life too, as Judas Iscariot did. (The traditional teaching of the church is that Judas Iscariot did not enter Heaven because he committed suicide, which is basically the ultimate blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since there is always forgiveness while we are still here on Earth if we repent, confess, and wash our sins in His Blood.) Because had he had that one hairline of hope in God, God would have forgiven him. After all, Peter denied Him but hung on, and not only was forgiven, but was one of those who baptized thousands after Pentecost, and wrote epistles the Church later included in the Scriptures. And even those who crucified the Lord were forgiven on the spot. That should remind us of just how expansive God's mercy and forgiveness are. Truly amazing.
Lord have mercy on us all, and help us "finish the race" (Acts 20:24, 1 Cor. 9:24, 2 Tim. 4:7, and Heb. 12:1) in peace with the Lord.
14. Tomi said the following at 9:58 PM on Apr 17:
Hmm I'm with Ashley on this one. I think terrorism has more to do with sociological problems and political unrest, and radical Islam is just a way to channel frustration and facilitate something that may have happen anyway.
Think--
average American gang member: young, disenfranchised male on the lower end of America's socio-economic class structure who will kill anyone who gets in his way of chasing the false dream that money, no matter the means by which it is gain will lead to happiness.
avg. terrorist: young, disenfranchised male on the lower end of Arab and global society, who will kill anyone and everyone while chasing hopes of becoming a "martyr" that are fueled by false religious teachings.
People say that Christianity could NEVER really sanction something like this without violating some of its basic tenets. Well, I am from Nigeria, part of a continent in which the ravages of European imperialism fueled by Christianity and missionary zeal are still being felt. During imperialism, the first to colonize an area were usually priests and missionaries seeking to "Christianize" (aka "civilize"/make white) the people who they saw as savages. These were average people, and they saw themselves as going into dark, savage, foreign lands to free the people from their hedonistic ways, just as terrorists want to destroy what they perceive as the immorality and infidelity in Western culture.
Lots of horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and other major religions, and even though many people say terrorism is "sanctioned" by the Koran, it wasn't much of a stretch either for people to see colonization and destruction of people's culture as "missionary work," though today we see it differently. Hindsight is always 20/20 and what is important in analyzing these situations is societal context.
15. Tomi said the following at 10:08 PM on Apr 17:
This whole thing is so sad and tragic--its sad that no one he came in contact with was able to help him and prevent all this carnage.
That said, the xenophobic way the media is playing the whole "South Korean immigrant" thing is really driving me mad! I came to the states with my family when I was 7 1/2 years old, am now 19 and recently got my citizenship--I'm as "American" as they come and somehow managed to win prom queen at my all white Kansan high school. This guy came to the states when he was EIGHT YEARS OLD! That's SECOND GRADE people! I'm pretty sure any problems he had had a lot more to do with America than Korea.
In my case, I have very little/no memory of my time in Nigeria because the initial culture shock was so traumatizing to my 7 year old self :)
16. S said the following at 10:26 PM on Apr 17:
Tomi,
Thank you. Very well put.
17. Rachael C. said the following at 11:46 PM on Apr 17:
Hi Tomi! Fancy meeting you here!:)
18. m Castillo said the following at 11:53 PM on Apr 17:
"avg. terrorist: young, disenfranchised male on the lower end of Arab and global society, who will kill anyone and everyone while chasing hopes of becoming a "martyr" that are fueled by false religious teachings."
I think you should investigate the religion before such a claim is made. This is Islam Fundamentals. Just for not claiming to be a muslim you can be killed legally in a lot of these countries...
To die as a Jihadist is their only guarantee of getting to heaven. I've heard Muslims say they needed to do more good works to earn God's favor and it was very sad
19. xeres said the following at 12:49 AM on Apr 18:
Liz-Austraila, with all due respect stop pulling the gun control debate, please. It's one of the BIGGEST political fights we have in this country. It deals will the issue of whether the 2nd amendment is a collective right or an individual right like freedom of speech. We already has numerous comments and even post that cause unnecessary divisions on dating/courtship already. Let's not talk about gun control right now to create more division at this point. The families and friends of the victim need prayers and insight of the incident, not another political controversy politicians will used to win votes for themselves. There are politicians and activists who do really care about the issue for their loved ones but the majority are so focus on being right about this issue that they forget why they are for or against gun control.
20. Jethro said the following at 2:23 AM on Apr 18:
Amen Liz
21. Justin said the following at 5:41 AM on Apr 18:
That's funny, because when I first heard of the V-Tech Massacre I remembered all those school shootings in the 90's, and my first thought was "some crazy white kid".
I was wrong as well. The lesson here is maybe to withhold judgement until all the facts are in.
22. Leah said the following at 5:48 AM on Apr 18:
I'm actually all for the American right to bear arms. I think Australian gun laws are overly stringent. However, it does stem shootings, so that is a good thing. However, I think Switzerland wins when it comes to gun laws. Virtually every household in Switzerland is in possession of a gun. Every able man of age is conscripted to the army, to serve only a short amount of time (I think it's 2 years), and it's not likely they're going to get killed in combat- when was the last time Switzerland went to war?! Therefore, because virtually every man over 18 knows how to use a gun, and most of them own guns (or are at least free to), Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of the western world.
(Well, it did when I read the book I got this from- it was a book produced by the UN, I think, rating all the countries in the world according to their livability. Switzerland won, I think. Australia cracked the top 10, I can't remember about the US.)
23. Erica said the following at 8:35 AM on Apr 18:
Why is arms so easily available to anyone in America? In seems that everytime someone has a problem with a parent, school, church and workplace in the USA, the first thing they do is get a gun to deal with it. Is it that life in the USA is so busy that no one no longer has time to stop and listen and talk. People all over the world have bad days when everything goes wrong but getting a gun required so many paperwork in some countries by the time you finish all of that anger has disappeared.
What happened at Virginia Tech. could have to anyone and anywhere. Anger is strange thing when left uncheck. It is the grace of God that kept us each day of our lives as we don't know if what we might run into on a bus, in a supermarket, Post Office and even churches. We don't know what that person is going through. Let us always pray before we left our homes for protection and ask God guidance among the people we come in contact with.
Another thing, the persons or thing we expect to hurt you might not as you are prepare for that. It is the unknown that hurts, the neighbourhood who is having problems with his wife and kids that you don't know about is more easy to harm you than the Islamist. The kid who is an outcast at school and cannot fit in.
If a Virginia Tech., the attacker was an Arab, African-American so many persons would not get kill. The attack would have been curtailed.
24. mindlab said the following at 8:35 AM on Apr 18:
Apparently it's a bit late in the game to add this, but anyway. . .
I think one of the most important reasons that people want (need?) to see a face and read a description of the killer is to reassure themselves that he was "different". People want to think that he was "not like me" or “not a normal person". This is why after any event like this, the immediate reaction is to try and find any reason that "people should have known."
That "people should have known" and that "he was different . . . not like me" are both true and false. I have spoken with TA's from the classes this man attended; he was certainly disturbed and very different, but no more so that tens or hundreds of other Tech students. People in his classes did wonder about him, but all that avoids another truth.
There is no honest person out there who has not known hatred and rage at some point; these are human emotions. Some people bring them to Christ and are healed and redeemed, and some people store them up for later. There is not crime so heinous and hateful that I could not commit it; there is only Christ redeeming and changing me. To try and make this man out to be “different” is an unconscious attempt to reassure ourselves that we are fundamentally “good” or at least “not that bad”. That’s a lie; we are all “that bad” without Christ.
To those who want to turn this into a debate about gun control, save it. No one wants to hear it right now; there will be a time for that, but not now.
“And I know you bore our sorrows,
And I know you feel our pain,
And I know it would not hurt any less,
Even if it could be explained.” -Rich Mullins
25. Joshua said the following at 8:56 AM on Apr 18:
On the note about gun control:
To quote a bumper sticker/license plate/t-shirt that I see a lot in my area, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It is not the gun control policies of the US that cause (or even enable people to be capable of) murders, massacres, and other violent crimes involving firearms. On the news Monday night, they said that the killer at VT was actually unable to legally purchase/possess firearms, so if that is the case, then gun control laws have nothing to do with it.
Even if all firearms are outlawed everywhere in the world (even within the military), if someone wants to kill others, they will, whether it requires buying arms from a black market dealer, making explosives/firearms, or using an improvised weapon (for example, inmates aren't allowed to have knives or weapons, by law, but how many people get stabbed/beaten to death in prisons each year?).
It is easy to blame something or someone. We cannot punish the killer, because he killed himself. We can point out poor decisions on behalf of VT administration, possibly (but can't blame them, for we are unable to know how we'd have acted in their place), and we can't blame laws enabling or prohibiting access to firearms.
It is an extremely sad, solemn, horrific thing that has happened. But the answer isn't laws or programs. It's God.
26. Becky F. said the following at 9:47 AM on Apr 18:
Maybe I'm just apathetic towards "sensationalism" in the media, but I didn't care who the shooter was. I was saddened by the fact that we'd had another school shooting, but I wasn't much interested in the details past what exactly had happened. My initial thoughts when I saw the "largest school shooting in American history" or whatever were the headlines, was remembering the Kent State massacre from during the Vietnam war. Also, I marvelled at how quickly the media interviews people and posts live footage on the Internet.
27. m Castillo said the following at 10:18 AM on Apr 18:
Regardless of a picture or not, this kid needed Jesus and no one had reached out to him.
The gun control thing is just a needless argument, it's part of our constitution and they will never be outlawed. I think it would be a good law that only citizens could purchase guns but I'm sure he could have found some anyways...
To say we need to get rid of guns would be like saying we need to get rid of all fast food and soda to people wouldn't get fat... on the outward appearance it seems to be taking care of the problem but doesn't directly deal with the issue... cheers
28. Joshua Pettett said the following at 10:28 AM on Apr 18:
This hardly seems like the place to be discussing gun law; perhaps this should be made into a new thread. But I feel compelled to defend the honor of all American civilians who take both the right and responsibility of armed self-defense (which includes the protection of family, neighbors, etc.) seriously.
I'm not familiar with Virginia law, but isn't possesing a gun, if not other types of lethal weapons as well, on Virgina Tech's campus illegal? If so, then the very law intended to protect the victims worked against them by taking away the most effective way to confront a murderer. If even one out of ten people present were carrying a firearm, I'm sure that most of the victims would still be alive today.
Yes, guns are designed to kill people. But this very fact is what makes them so effective for self-defense. The problem with the gun law debate is that the mass media seems inclined to report on criminal uses of guns but not on defensive uses of guns (most of which don't result in anyone being killed). But the most thorough research strongly suggests that guns save many more lives that they take. And in fact, it seems to me that many of the most notorious examples of violent crime occur in places where guns are restricted or banned (schools, post offices, Washington, D.C., etc.).
See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149250,00.html for more examples and research details.
29. Mandi said the following at 11:22 AM on Apr 18:
Ashley and Tomi,
Honestly, I need to calm down before I make my full reply to your comments. It's getting awfully tiring, maddening, and insulting to read comments like yours about Islam and Christianity. You couldn't be farther from the truth on either. Especially troubling to see Boundless readers walking around espousing such nonsense.
I take very personal offense to your comments as a Christian of Middle Eastern background. I will get into why when I have cooled off enough to put together something that resembles a gracious answer.
Frankly, I am astounded at the level of ignorance that permeates your comments about the two religions.
30. Jacob said the following at 11:31 AM on Apr 18:
The face of evil is what we see any time we look in the mirror. The heart is desperately wicked. There are none righteous. No, not one. Frankly, if someone who has been given over to a depraved mind is intent on killing people, I highly doubt he is going to bother abiding by gun laws anyway.
An aside, how many of those who are against firearms have actually been around them? How many of them realize that criminals don't care about gun laws (or any laws for that matter?). The problem is no guns, the problem is the face in mirror.
31. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:55 PM on Apr 18:
I like mindlab's comments.
I do think there is a time and place for criminal profiling, but realize too that history as well as the Bible (1 Cor 10:11-13) teach us that anyone is capable of such evil.
Ted Bundy himself said that he was just a "normal middle class" kid from an unremarkable upbringing and yet was able to murder many young women (he said exposure to pornography was the main catalyst).
Cho Seung-Hui was a "loner" and "depressed". So are a lot of young people. What makes one person crack and go on a killing spree and another person take the higher ground?
If there is one lesson to be reminded of I suppose is that it's important to at least try be involved with other people's lives. I wonder that PERHAPS this could've been prevented if he had someone to confide in and be an outlet for what he was feeling inside.
32. Tomi said the following at 4:06 PM on Apr 18:
mandi: I'm kind of confused on what exactly you mean, or what you take offense to. While I am a liberal (very) I grew up in, and still attend a fundamentalist, Bible believing church, my father is a former pastor, and I consider myself to be at the least Biblically proficient. I also come from and have spent a significant amount of time in where over 50% of the population is Muslim, although it is not in the Middle East. While none of this makes me anywhere close to being an "expert" on either Christianity or Islam, I have had a great deal of experience with both.
That said, the point of my post wasn't Christianity, Islam, or even religion at all, but rather that societal rather than religious factors are at the heart of what push people in societies all around the world to "act out" in whatever way.
33. Mandi said the following at 10:26 AM on Apr 19:
Ashley,
You said, “The jihadists who kill are in violation of this section of the Koran, but of course they'd argue their way through loopholes (like the infidel command).”
This statement betrays a common mistake people in the West, especially Christians, make when trying to study the Koran. When we as Christians read things in the Holy Bible that *seem* to contradict each other, we need to be mindful of the overall principle that the Holy Bible is what it says it is: God’s Word. It is Truth. We might not understand it, but that does not make a passage contradictory, or even a “loophole”. God does not contradict Himself. He has changed laws in the NT (e.g., about loving enemies, and divorce). But He does not contradict Himself. I realize that this seems like a circular argument (“the Bible is Truth, therefore, everything in it is true”), but that is our Faith as Christians. Proving the Truth of the Bible is for another subject, and I trust I don’t need to do that for you anyway.
re: “‘then you are imposing upon the Koran tenets that you would prefer it had, not ones that are there’". Well excuse me, but I'd rather you didn't tell me what I was doing.”
My point is not to tell you what you’re doing. My point is to underline the mistake in your initial attack of Motte’s comment about jihadists by your flawed comparison to the behavior of some Christians.
Motte was justified in associating mass-murder with jihadists, based on what the Koran actually says about the subject. I contemplated copying and pasting some suras about killing non-believers but when I came to do it, I found literally pages and pages and pages worth of calls to kill, kill, fight, kill, maim, kill, kill, fight, rape, kill, kill etc those who do not believe in their god, Allah, not to be confused with God. Not my opinion, so it’s not about “disagreeing” with me. It’s there in black and white. And there’s no fudging “interpretations” if you read it in Arabic.
So, followers of that religion who do us the favor of not killing, fighting, etc. are doing so against the commands and tenets of their faith, not in accordance with it. On the other hand, when Christians kill, fight, etc. we do so in clear violation of the commands and tenets of ours. Whereas the Koran exhorts killing unbelievers, the Holy Bible instructs us to shake the dust off of our feet if someone refuses the Gospel and let our peace return to us. Whereas the Koran calls for the fighting with and killing of enemies, our Lord famously commands us to love them, and warns us that those who use the sword will die by it. These two religions cannot be further apart on almost any issue. So, a jihadist is actually exhibiting piety by living out the tenets of his book, whereas a Christian performing the same acts would be exhibiting impiety.
“I've talked to a number of Muslims-turned-Christians or Christian evangelists to Muslims (so have done a reasonable amount of study of Islam) and they all say the same thing. Perhaps they're imposing tenets upon Islam that they'd rather it has?”
With the greatest respect, what you describe as “a reasonable amount of study of Islam” doesn’t quite cut it. Again, this is a common mistake made by Westerners. Look at the facts. Look at what the Koran actually says. We cannot come to this with pre-conceived notions that no false teaching could be that bad. Did these converts just not know what their previous religion said about how to deal with non-believers? Perhaps. I don't know. But the presence of all the suras there's simply no room on this blog to reproduce for you cannot be denied.
You don’t need to take my word for it. You may wish to look at the work of scholars, most notably the renowned Fr. Zakaria, whose head comes at an astronomical price these days. He is an expert in both the Koran and the Scriptures (www.islam-christianity.net or www.fatherzakaria.net). The man may be "on leave” of his official duties as a priest because of the way he presents his message sometimes, but tens of thousands tune into his daily webcasts and TV show – and are baptized -- because he is confronting them with what their book actually says, not what nice people would prefer it said or meant (or don’t even know what it says, even Muslims).
I have tried very hard to season my comments with graciousness. I'm not sure if I've been successful. This is important to me at many levels, so responding to Westerners who may not have as personal experience with this can be difficult. I will get into that in my reply to Tomi. I hope that I have caused no offense.
34. Leah said the following at 7:25 PM on Apr 19:
Mandi, it was not ashley who said those things, but me. Maybe be a little bit more careful next time who you are accusing.
I don't see what your problem with my “The jihadists who kill are in violation of this section of the Koran, but of course they'd argue their way through loopholes (like the infidel command)” comment was. You simply talked about the bible. Are you saying that I shouldn't have called it a 'loophole'? Well, if that's all, you needn't have gotten so fired up over it, you could have just said that. Besides, anything that 'lets' people commit crime is generally referred to as a loophole.
"My point is not to tell you what you’re doing. My point is to underline the mistake in your initial attack of Motte’s comment about jihadists by your flawed comparison to the behavior of some Christians."
Well, whether it was your point or not, that's what you did. I didn't attack Motte's comment either, I just said it was wrong to immediately assume Muslims are always the problem. And what do you mean 'flawed comparison to the behaviour of some Christians'? I wasn't comparing anything. I simply said that there have been many shootings done by non-Muslims (I woudl not go so far as to call them Christian), so we should not immediately assume this one was a Muslim. There is nothing flawed about that.
I know there is a lot about killing and all the rest. I said that myself (ie- the reference to the "infidel commands".) That's the problem with the Koran (aside from the fact it simply isn't true, because we know the Bible is), it is self-contradictory (ie. parts that say don't kill innocent women and children when at war, then other parts that say do so). I never said it was anything about disagreeing with your opinion.
And I am sure one of my sources, Reverend Fayek Iskander, is quite aware of what his old faith teaches, seeing as his family has disowned him and a price is on his head too, so much that there are times even in Australia when he has had to go into hiding.
I'm not saying anything about preferring the Koran to say x y z. Why woudl I WANT the Koran to be nice and believable?! I was pointing out the contradictions in it. I don't know what all the comparisons between a Muslime's piety and a Christian's piety is either- I know what the Koran says in reference to unbelievers, and I know what the Bible says in reference to unbelievers. My original point was, 'jihad' itself is not, in and of itself, holy war.
35. Mandi said the following at 8:04 PM on Apr 19:
Tomi (and others who may share her views), I think I'm ready to address your comments now. You may wonder why I have taken such great offence -- and an entire day to calm down and reply -- but I hope what follows sheds some light. I've also been weighing just how much to say because I do not know who is reading this forum, and I do not want to endanger anyone in my community or family.
Your comments have offended me first as a Christian, and then as a Christian from a particular part of the world -- where Christianity saw some of its earliest days, most vigorous defences, bloodiest sacrifices, and carried (and continues to carry), by far, its heaviest crosses.
Either you are truly unaware of the history of which I speak, or you are deliberately ignoring it, favoring a "liberal" worldview of Christian history and teachings. Not meaning to sound condescending, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
Ask any survivor of the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust in Germany, and they'll tell you that explaining away the evil that sought to destroy their people would be thoroughly insulting. There's even a trace of blame there, as if "sociological factors and political unrest" could hand that blame around more evenly.
Islam has done just that to the people of my ancestral homeland. We went from being 100% of the population to nearly 10-15% today in the span of 13 centuries following the Arab invasion of our land (to which we have never responded by use of force, for the record). That invasion almost eliminated one of the oldest civilizations in the world -- the indigenous Egyptians -- from the Earth, through mass-slaughter and polygamy.
These people were just minding their own business, Tomi. There was no U.S.A. to blame for "sociological factors and political unrest". There was no Palestinian/Israeli mess. Just one of the strongest centres of Christendom in the world, and they sought to destroy it *because* of what their book said.
My parents and cousins were forced to memorize the "suras" that spurred such atrocities as part of their "literacy" training, and my cousins hear them blasting out of megaphones into their balconies 5 times a day, every day. Recently, some jihadists stormed local churches wielding knives and swords. My cousins' car was splattered with the blood of one of the Christians killed in that attack. The trail of blood on the steps to their church looked like a scene you'd expect in another age. I could go on, but I won't. All of this is textbook jihad.
Equally offensive was this: "..part of a continent in which the ravages of European imperialism fueled by Christianity and missionary zeal are still being felt." How dare you claim that European imperialism was "fueled by Christianity"?!?!? Slavery, economic plundering, whatever the evils that came with European imperialism, they were not "fueled by" Christianity unless you are saying that Christianity sanctions those evils. Christians did, not Christianity. Christianity *commands* love, even for the enemy. Christianity commands that those resistant to the Gospel should be left alone to their choices (Mark 6:11).
And what's wrong with "missionary zeal"? We're told to teach and baptize *all* nations (including African ones). Again, within Mark 6:11's limits.
Perhaps your next sentence explains that complaint: "During imperialism, the first to colonize an area were usually priests and missionaries seeking to "Christianize" (aka "civilize"/make white) the people who they saw as savages."
Good Lord, again, what's wrong with "seeking to 'Christianize' pagans? We were *all* born pagans. What do you find so offensive about the duty to spread the Gospel? That those targeted had darker skin than their missionaries? So what?!? Did Christ not die for them too? The racist thing, actually, would be to want to leave those people un-evangelized because of their skin color.
Then you say, "'Christianize' (aka "civilize"/make white) the people they saw as savages". Whoa. That statement is many things. Ironic and historically inaccurate are two.
In the 1st century, the 4 main hotbeds of Christianity were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Have you *seen* people from Jerusalem? Antioch? Alexandria? We're generally not "white".
When such deal-breaking issues as the Divinity of Christ were being attacked by heretics, it wasn't "white" (gosh, I hate referring to people like that) Christians from London or Paris that defended the belief that Christ is Divine. It was one man from Alexandria, Athanasius the Great. (That's the Alexandria that housed the famous theological school where some of the most important theologians in the history of Christianity were trained, including one that Boundless published about, Athenagoras.)
It is no exaggeration to say that you and all Christians that believe in the Triune God owe a debt to the relentless witness of the Church in Egypt against the Arian heresy. Any suggestion that to "make someone Christian" is to make them "white" is (besides being ridiculous) to totally ignore such contributions from the Orient and the East. As if to say if it didn't happen in "white" post-Reformation Europe, it didn't happen. Nice. Can you see the offence your charges would bring to someone whose "non-white" ancestors fought for your Faith to remain intact -- and who barely survived the scourage of the Arab invasion?
And please do not read what I'm not saying here: I'm *not* saying that Christianity is a faith that belongs to only those where it began, in the East. It belongs to all equally.
Please, don't perpetuate the myth that Christianity is some kind of child of the West by your charges that to evangelize is to try to "make white". Nonsense. It's no more to "make white" than it is to "make olive", as in the color of the skin of the heroes whose contributions to Christendom were pivotal to the survival of the basic tenets of the Christian Faith today.
Regarding your charge about "civilizing", well, we are all in need of Christ's civilizing. We are all brutes without Him, regardless of the shade of our skin.
36. ag said the following at 10:36 PM on Apr 19:
Mandi,
I think it is hard for some people in the West to realize that a religion can actually sanction violence or decree that death be imposed on non-beleivers. Your message is so very important (and accurate). Your views may not be popular, but the truth is often difficult to hear (or read). I admire your courage.
37. xeres said the following at 11:48 PM on Apr 19:
I like to add that most of the Jewish believers during the early Church weren't white either, which doesn't make Christianity a white man's religion. However, it doesn't make it a Jewish religion either. The Book of Acts is a great book for showing the Early Church and its struggle with its identity due to mishaps, adventure, cultural issues and the works. Read the book of Acts when anyone gets the chance (its genra is a historic narrative, which is cool)
38. Leah said the following at 1:36 AM on Apr 20:
Mandi- "Please, don't perpetuate the myth that Christianity is some kind of child of the West by your charges that to evangelize is to try to 'make white.'"
By saying that westerners sought to Christianise/make white eastern cultures is not to say westerners started Christianity. Tomi's comment was not ironic or historically inaccurate -- in fact, it was very accurate. Many people with "missionary zeal" (wchih is not bad) have sought to do this. Many times they went about it the wrong way though.
Tomi is right when she says her country is "part of a continent in which the ravages of European imperialism fueled by Christianity and missionary zeal are still being felt". Christians were not right to do what they did, but the fact remains, they still did it. Neither Tomi nor I are opposed to spreading the gospel, but it must be done respectfully and in the right way.
39. Mandi said the following at 9:18 AM on Apr 20:
“Mandi, it was not ashley who said those things, but me. Maybe be a little bit more careful next time who you are accusing.”
Ok, sorry, Leah – I should have included you in my alleged “attack”. I must have overlooked you because I was so upset by what Tomi had written, and she aligned herself with Ashley. My mistake – between the three of you, you’ve managed to essentially make light of jihad by trying to explain it away, downplay its importance to that religion because of the existence of “loopholes”, try to paint Christianity as equally responsible for evil in the world, and in so doing, ignore and belittle the suffering of your brothers and sisters in Christ in the Middle East…whose situations put the *lie* to the idea that jihad is provoked by socio-economic factors.
"I don't see what your problem with my “The jihadists who kill are in violation of this section of the Koran, but of course they'd argue their way through loopholes (like the infidel command)” comment was."
My problem is that you were not properly attributing jihad to the Koran. The only “loopholes” that jihadists are in violation of are the ones that purport to outlaw the shedding of innocent blood. However, a closer read would find that infidels, including “the People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), polytheists (which they allege we are because they stubbornly re-define the Holy Trinity for us), and the like do not have “innocent blood”. My problem is with the sanitized view of that book that you show in that statement, hanging your hat on obscure “suras” about innocent blood, making the volumes about jihad out to be “loopholes”. They're not.
Re: Motte’s comment specifically
Even ignoring the tortured history of the people, like mine, who have about 1300 years worth of history with jihad, why is it so “wrong” to “immediately assume” that Muslims could be behind a situation where someone completely disregarded the value of human life on a wide scale in a post-9/11 world? Can you blame Motte after New York, Pennsylvania, Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, and a long string of places in the Middle East??? Motte made the connection between Islamic jihadists and “want[ing] to kill so many innocents”. My guess is he did that because he’s got a better understanding of what jihad is, and has been watching the news at least since 9/11.
“And what do you mean 'flawed comparison to the behaviour of some Christians'?”
Ok, here’s where your comments and Ashley’s got mixed in my mind. It was Ashley that chided Motte for connecting jihad to a lack of respect for human lives with the example she used of Christians who bomb/kill abortionists or homosexuals. The only way that kind of comparison can be made is if Christianity calls for bombing/killing people the way that other religion calls for the killing of people it considers infidels. That is an attack on Christianity, and a sanitization of the other religion, again based on reading only its “loopholes” that show respect for life.
“I don't know what all the comparisons between a Muslime's piety and a Christian's piety is either.”
It goes back to the point about the substantive tenets of the respective religions. One calls for jihad, the other for the opposite. So, when a jihadist acts, he is being pious. When a Christian does the same kind of thing (i.e. bomb abortion clinics or kill homosexuals), she is being impious because her religion commands her to do the opposite.
“My original point was, 'jihad' itself is not, in and of itself, holy war.”
This is only technically true. As an Arabic-speaking Christian, when I use the word “jihad”, or a derivative of it, to describe, say, my academic efforts or even my spiritual struggles, I mean something totally different than a non-Christian using the same word because my religion doesn’t have holy war as one of its tenets, let alone major tenets. The same is true when I use the word “Allah”, if I’m praying in Arabic. “Allah” to me is just “God” with a capital “G” – the Triune God. To them, it is not the same being at all, but that is the story for another day.
Again, dumping on Motte's connection between jihadists and the desire to end so many lives was not only wrong objectively, it was hurtful personally because my people have done nothing to provoke the persecution against them; they are simply victims or survivors of true blue jihad. They haven't even fought back, ever (unless you want to consider educating their children fighting back). It is upsetting to see westerners downplay the evil that is jihad and start making the cliche arguments that self-loathing liberals are known to make about socio-economic factors and the alleged evil that Christianity supposedly encourages too. If people bothered to look at the history of jihad before the U.S. even existed, you would understand that it is just profoundly evil in and of itself. It has almost wiped entire civilizations off the planet. The U.S. had nothing to do with that. So, please, anyone reading this, stop coming to the defence of, or trying to explain away, jihad. Motte is right: it has no respect for human life.
40. Mandi said the following at 9:26 AM on Apr 20:
"By saying that westerners sought to Christianise/make white eastern cultures is not to say westerners started Christianity. Tomi's comment was not ironic or historically inaccurate"
Please read what I wrote again. I show that it's ironic and inaccurate because she's equating being a Christian with being white when in fact the earliest Christians -- who evanglized "whites" and defended the basic tenets of the Faith that we still have today -- were not white. *Even if* the European imperialists *thought* they were trying to "make people white" by making them Christians, they were wrong. Not just in their approach. It's so ridiculous because those very Europeans had the Gospel preached to *them* by the olive-skinned folks from Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and the surrounding areas, where Christianity began.
I don't deny that many of the effects of European imperialism are still being felt today.
What I dispute is saying the European imperialism was "fueled by Christianity", for the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Tomi.
41. Tomi said the following at 10:03 AM on Apr 20:
Mandi, your comments were very interesting and enlightening, but I think you misinterpreted some of my comments and we're going to have to agree to disagree on a few points!
I don't see anything wrong with missionaries, or bringing Christ to people. The problem was that Europeans saw anything about the culture that they didn't understand as "pagan" and "evil," regardless. Did you know that in many African countries it became illegal during colonialism to speak the native languages, and wear the native clothing? In Kenya it was so bad that only a couple ethnic groups even have traditional clothing that has "survived" imperialism. Think of it his way: There's nothing wrong with sharing Jesus to inner-city teens, but there's a problem if you tell them that baggy jeans and big hoop earrings are sinful.
Here's where I think we're going to have to "agree to disagree": I wasn't trying to "explain away" tragedy and evil that has happened by saying that sociological factors were the cause. I'm saying that in my opinion, despite what any religious text commands or sanctions, religion is not the inherent cause, but rather a vehicle for people to justify their evil actions.
42. Mandi said the following at 11:31 AM on Apr 20:
Tomi,
I agree: we will have to agree to disagree that European imperialism was "fueled by Christianity", and the "terrorism has more to do with sociological problems and political unrest". We'll also have to agree to disagree that what you describe as "radical Islam" isn't even radical, i.e., that it's only some interpretation of it.
With great respect, I stand by my claim that you were attempting to explain away jihad: you offered general profiles of the "average" American gang member and "average" terrorist, did you not? Regardless, I agree to disagree with you on this.
Where we might agree is here, actually: "The problem was that Europeans saw anything about the culture that they didn't understand as "pagan" and "evil," regardless."
That may be true in some, or many, cases. BUT it is NOT sanctioned by Christianity. The Book of Acts clearly shows that adherence to a particular culture was no longer central to life in Christ. In fact, the indigenous Church of Egypt has been evangelizing in Africa for centuries -- and has had explosive growth in the 20th and 21st centuries -- but it has *never* asked anyone to change their traditional languages or dress to become Christians. Perhaps that is why their ministries have been amongst the most long-lasting in Africa. Because, really, skin color, language, culture...none of these things have eternal significance in Christ.
That is very different in the case of the other religion we have been discussing. In fact, its followers successfully removed the indigenous native Egyptian language from our every day lives and replaced it with Arabic (by cutting off people's tongues!) because of a very different take on the place of language as it relates to our spiritual lives.
43. Becky F. said the following at 12:05 PM on Apr 20:
Thanks for the Ancient Church history lesson reminder, Mandi! It was very interesting. I think when we look at how the "majority population" of Christianity has shifted throughout the world, we tend to forget where it all began (in the Middle East). Regardless of what language we speak (and read the Bible in) and what color our skin is, I think we tend to project our characteristics onto the people we read about in books, including the Bible. It's like when I'm reading literature set in Britain, I have to remind myself that the dialogue would not actually be spoken in an American accent!
44. Leah said the following at 9:18 AM on Apr 22:
Mandi, you say that Christians, polytheists etc are not considered "innocent blood" by Muslims. Maybe so. But Muslim extremists are killing other innocent Muslims. Yes, holy war is encouraged by parts of the Koran, but many extremists are killing simply anyone, including innocent muslims, and that is in contravention to the Koran.
I was not downplaying, or coming to the defence of, what us westerners call Jihad- "holy war". I was simply saying, our use of the word Jihad is often wrong because it does not explicity apply only to Holy War, but "struggle" in general. And yes, this is often carried out by Holy War.
And I don't think Tomi was equating being Christian with being white. I think she was just saying early Christians, in the process of sharing the gospel, also tried to "make white" those who they were sharing the gospel with. And yes, this is wrong. And no, it is not sanctioned by the bible. But it still happened. And yes, it is ridiculous, because the gospel was originally brought to them by olive-skinned folk. But that was hundreds of years before European Imperialism, and I'm sure they'd well and truely forgotten that by then.
And I thought it was wrong of Motte to immediately assume it was a Muslim, because in my mind that is like racism. Except... 'religionism' :P And yes, Muslims have committed many heinous acts in the last 10 years. But a single shooter? I can't remember any that have done that. They have all been bombs, or hijackings. Not a lone gunman. I was not "dumping on Motte's connection between jihadists and the desire to end so many lives". I simply said it's wrong to immediately blame someone for something that we do not know they committed.
"“My original point was, 'jihad' itself is not, in and of itself, holy war.” This is only technically true." Well, that's all I was saying, and you went and told me I was wrong and acted like I was stupid and ignorant.
And I never said you attacked anyone ("Ok, sorry, Leah – I should have included you in my alleged “attack”."), I said you accused them, two very different things.
And ag- I don't think it's hard for westerners to believe in a religion that sanctions murder. Why the hatred against Muslims after 9/11 then? (rhetorical question).
45. Leah said the following at 8:34 AM on Apr 27:
You know what? Maybe we should have heard from Thabiti on this topic...
46. Ashley said the following at 1:29 PM on Apr 27:
*sigh*
Mandi, please see my reply on the "condemning bad things is good" thread. I was not in any way, shape or form attempting to make light of jihad. But I do think it is unjust to blame where blame is undeserved.
If I were a recovering alcoholic and it was discovered that there was an empty beer can in my apartment -- that had been consumed by someone else and left there, it would be unjust for someone to report that I had drank the beer.
If Islamic Jihadists had been behind this attack I never would have taken issue with the statement. The facts say that they were not. Because of that, no matter how evil Jihad can be, it is unjust to imply that they may have somehow been involved.
It was very transparent of Motte to relay his initial supposition, but I think it may have best served everyone not to mention it, because now 90% of the replys to this thread are about Jihad rather than his excellent point about the depravity of man.