A "jihad", as it has been defined by a genuinely practicing Muslim, a representative of The Council on American/Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.) who addressed a meeting of the staff of the Federal Agency from which the writer is now retired. This staff meeting was subsequent to and directly because of the events of 11 September 2001, would be a personal internal struggle. It is most decidedly not what has in the past and is currently going on in our world. But just as those, like Torquemada, the man in charge of the Inquisition of the era of Ferdinand and Isabella in 15th century Spain, or the thousands of Crusaders who went to fight in the Holy Land in the centuries before them, who misused their religion and its doctrines to justify their totally unjustifiable and "beyond reprehensible" actions, (the Inquisition and the Crusades), or the Bin Ladins and Saddam Husseins of our current day, whatever they're doin', I can guarantee that it ain't a "jihad". In this the words of a spokesman for the Kuwaiti government during Desert Storm might be appropriately quoted. When asked if what Hussein was conducting was a "holy war" the gentleman replied, "No, it quite definitely is not. What Mr. Hussein has failed to remember is that in order to fight a holy war, one first must be holy." In the Qur'am (Koran), there is a passage which notes that Jews and Christians are "People of the Book".

The written instructions of the Prophet Mohammed are quite clear and direct in Chapter 3, verse 64 which reads:"O people of the Scripture come to an agreement between us and you," obviously recognizing that irrespective of belief, we still must all get along. Further in Chapter 5, verses 82 and 83, is written, "And you Muslims will find the nearest to you in affection are those who say "We are Christians." That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud when they listen to what has been revealed in the Qur'an. You'll see their recognition of Islam does not allow us the following: 1. No Conversion, 2. No prosyletizing, 3. Baptism, 4. No debate, 5. No preaching, and 6. No convincing, but we have to dialogue each with the other concerning the commonalities. If the People of the Book refuse to discuss commonalities, we leave them alone" And finally in Chapter 29, Verse 46 of the Qur'am, God says "And dispute you not with the people of the Book., except with means better than mere disputation. This definitely does not sound like the things which are being said in our world today by those who obviously have "hijacked" a religion of absolutely valid faith and practice for their own ends, who make use of only it as they can misuse, misquote, and twist it to their own evil and perverted purposes. As noted in a previous piece, the "religion" of such as the Torquemadas, the hijackers of 11 September (and those who sent them) as well as the many hotheads who misquote and misuse the writings of the Bible and the Torah in like twisted manner has supplied us with the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini, theTaliban, Slavery, Northern Ireland, and the Klan. "Faith" has given us a long and innumerable list of persons who have enriched and aided our lives individually and collectively in one way or another whether noticed at the time or not, plus the late Mother Theresa, and Albert Schweitzer (and many times, the person who lives next door to us or down the block).

At this point, the reader is cautioned, even as the writer is ever and excruciatingly mindful in his own life, that although our own actions may pale in comparison to the actions of the Torquemadas and Bin Ladens of this earth, we all still do or decline to do things each and every day each of which, in their own way, are demeaning or distressful to, and/or evidentiary of a marked lack of respect for others, either singly or collectively.

The reader might logically inquire what part any religion, of any stripe, has to do with a piece like this. It is a logical part of this tome because irrespective of any other argument for or against its validity or usefulness, religious tradition and practice is the basis for the actions, thoughts and perspectives of most of the peoples of the world, especially those of the North American and European continents. All three of the above listed religions are monotheistic. It must be stipulated that they are all talking about the same God (even though some various of the practitioners might disagree (and have for centuries, (sometimes extremely heatedly) if not millenii) on that point). Though those of the Jewish faith do not recognize Jesus in the same light as the Christians (at least those who are trinitarians) do, they still see him as a great Rabbi and scholar of their tradition. Muslims hold Him to be a genuine prophet and teacher. Therefore the writer feels quite comfortable in making the quotations contained herein for the purpose of illustration of the story for those of any of these faiths.

As it was defined for the attendants at the above referenced meeting an excellent example of what a genuinely practicing Muslim would refer to as a "jihad" might be illustrated by the Biblical parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke XV, 11-24). In his struggle (having come to his senses having found himself among the swine (an excellent example because to the practicing Jew was "traif" or forbidden) as to what to do in order to alleviate his current situation, in which he concluded "I shall go to my father and seek to become one of his servants"

In the manner of respect for others (or the lack thereof), having noted the quotations of the Qur'am noted above, it is further noted that in the Christian Scriptures, the New Testament of the Bible, Matthew 25:40 reads, "And the King shall answer them saying, "Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto Me."" Okay, so the reference for those who are going to be picky about it, is to feeding, clothing, visiting, aiding, all of which are physical acts. But looking beyond the words, the basis for all of these actions mentioned is basic respect for the other human being and his right to exist in peace and harmony to an extent no less than our own. But too many, myself included, in their normal day-to-day sometimes tend to be more like the Pharisee (mentioned in the Christian Bible in Luke XVIII, 9-14 and in the Torah in Deuteronomy XXVI, 1-15) who stood in the middle of the temple with head high and arms outstretched as he is quoted as saying, "Lord I thank you that I am not like that Publican (a person who collected taxes (usually overcollecting, cheating, unprincipled, oppressive) in the name of the Romans, much hated and universally despised by the Jewish people as the willing tools of the Occupation) over there, I do this, that, and the other thing which is more than is required by Your law, aren't You lucky to have me on your side". And the Publican who could not even look up, but rather "smote his breast" and with downcast eyes said "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner." The question raised by this little tableau is "Which of these went back to his home justified and forgiven in the eyes of God, not just his own?" Obvious answer, the Publican.

One must then conclude that the "sin" or the "disrespect" is not only against the person (if it can be truly stated that we can sin against each other being sinners (violators of the rules of their religion, be they Jews or Christians) ourselves, e.g. the question becomes "can a sinner be sinned against), but against God Himself. Again using the Prodigal Son as the example, he is quoted as saying to himself, "I shall go unto my father and say, "I have sinned against Heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son." Please note that he clearly delineates that the sin is against Heaven, i.e. God. Perhaps this is an idea which we might all profitably ponder in the spare time which we should make to do so. Perhaps we ought to consider the proposition that each and every time we "dis" another person in whatever manner, for whatever reason, we have violated an immutable, multi-idiological sacred law. This might be construed as an opening for the discussion of the difference between "sins of commission" (we actively and intentionally show disrespect) and "sins of omission" (we fail to treat others with respect even if inadvertently). Actually, there is no need of any discussion because there is no actual difference. The two are equally egregious according to all religious tradition and experience.

There is a message for those young people who might be reading this, you should remember that the rules apply equally to your treatment of that bratty brother or sister of yours or their friends and acquaintances. That is why this is not exclusively or even necessarily a "religious" exercise. Remembering that most of the rules of the various religious traditions are based on multiple millenii of human experience harking back to the beginnings of time, long before there was any reason to refer to religious teaching and/or tradition because there was none. Mention should be made of the fact that "respect" is earned. Granted. However, perhaps it would be better to present this as, "even if there is no respect for the person involved, still one must not disrespect them for the simple reason that it is not the place of any of us to make such a value judgment of others. Also remember that we can hate the actions of the other person but not the persons themselves."

Beyond that, there is a message herein for all of us. We have these choices:

We can't just desire the optimal results, we must each and all work diligently for them. Only then will be achieve them. If we have no desire to do the work, make the effort, then we should just resignedly consign ourselves to the nadir of existence which will be the inescapable result. We will get that for which we are willing to work and expend our efforts, being ever mindful that we shall fully deserve the consequences of our actions or inactions, whatever they may be.

The author wishes to express his humble gratitude to two parties. The Church On The Way in Van Nuys, California for use of the reference material in their library and to Dr. Ahmad H. Sakr, PhD of the Islamic Center in Diamond Bar, California without whose assistance, this article would not have been possible.

vurdraak@pacbell.net

Opinion Piece # 18

MEANDERINGS IV - WHAT IF ?

Click to Read

Home / List of Topics