WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.
Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont.
Playing Make-Believe
Mr. Wallace reasons that spin doctors have sold gullible Americans a politically correct version of Islam where Islam is considered a religion of peace. (4).
Based on any research I have done on Islam (I admit I am not an Islamic scholar, but am a Christian theologian and philosopher), which includes academic texts that are used in World Religion classes, and looking at the Qur'an; the concepts of Jihad and Holy War do belong in the context of orthodox Islam (See this website archives).
Granted, it could be argued that Jihad in an orthodox Islamic context is a modified in comparison to a radical Islam context and therefore, in general, Jihad is not administered as violently within the world of Islam. But this would be a subject of great debate.
Interestingly, I noted in an archived related article's comments section:
From
The Islamic Supreme Council of America
Cited
'The Islamic Supreme Council of America
WHAT JIHAD IS
The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving. The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".
In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.
If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.
Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.
In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.
The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.
Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.
WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.
Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications..
End citation
A counter view:
Religion of Peace
'Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.
Islam apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.'
End citation
'The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.'
Therefore, this 'Jihad is not a violent concept', is not true.
Even a just war is violent.
Quote:
'Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions'
Yet: 'Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.'
Biblical Christianity would never take up a religious war. Law and order is left to the State (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).
Even the way 'The Islamic Supreme Council of America' described Jihad and Holy War, the open-ended nature of the Qur'an in regard to Jihad and Holy War is troublesome. It seems to me there is plenty of room for orthodox to more radical interpretations under the theology and political philosophy of Jihad and Holy War.
To quote the counter text:
'Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way).'
Yes, for example, the book of Hebrews states there is a new covenant and the old one, which would have been used within the theocracy of Israel is now obsolete. The New Testament era and forward until the restoration, is the Church age and if interpreted correctly, the Kingdom of God is not of this world system (John 18, Revelation 21-22). Therefore, there is no theology of holy war in the New Testament.
I can agree with Mr. Wallace, in the sense that Islam is generally not being accurately marketed in the Western world.
