What are the correct interpretations?
Having read the article, and Farish's response, I can understand why he has tried to balance the scales of history somewhat, in case readers get the false impression that Islam is the only religion capable of violence, by reminding us of the incursion of Christianity into Southeast Asia.
I must point out, however, that Roman Catholicism, the brand of Christianity that was introduced to the Philippines by their Spanish conquerors, and of which the Pope is the central and supreme religious authority, has acknowledged it has made mistakes in the past. The Pope has even gone to the extent of apologising to Muslims for atrocities committed by the Crusaders. Let us not forget that the Crusaders were not fighting a 'Christian war' against Muslims but a 'cultural and political war' against them. And, in fairness to the truth in history, atrocities were created by both sides.
But stirring old wounds are counter-productive. If history teaches us anything we should be more redemptive, restoring and reconciling with one another.
The problem with Roman Catholicism of that era was its tendency to involve religion in politics and give rise to nominalism. One only needs to visit the Philippines to observe the paganism and idolatry that sit side by side with Catholicism. In many ways like in Muslim conquests, conversions of the locals or defeated were only nominal, political and cultural. One concludes that not all Catholics are Christians because a true Catholic and Christian believes in only one God. Pagan idolatry can still co-exist with Catholicism in many Filipino homes just like old Hindu and animistic practices survive in certain Malay customs.
When political ambitions and agendas take precedence over spiritual concerns, corruption sets in. Sadly, the history of the Roman Catholic church, despite having produced some great and godly people and having made great contributions to world civilisation, has at times fallen prey to scoundrels. Political intrigue and murder have filled its pages with scandals that boggle the mind and make a modern-day novel boring reading in comparison. Perhaps, the Pope knew that only too well and did the humbling thing by apologising for his church's past mistakes. None of us is without our own faults.
It was at a time, when the Roman Catholic church in Europe was weak and corrupt, that a deeply religious Roman Catholic monk called Martin Luther pointed out the wrongs of the church which was guilty of the corrupt practice called "the sale of indulgences" whereby the Catholic church traded the forgiveness of sins for money. Heresy, it was, and Luther protested the corruptions of the ecclesiastical authorities. When he read the Bible, he found no basis for many of the practices taught by the Roman Catholic church. He tried to reform the establishment but failed and was ex-communicated and escaped with his life.
The word 'Protestant' came to describe the followers of Luther who protested against the corruptions of the religious authorities. The reformation led to the formation of new churches founded on the Bible and Luther's famous saying sola scriptura, which in Latin, means 'scriptures alone'.
In other words, it laid the foundation for a religious renaissance and for Christians to base their faiths, not on the pronouncements of man, but on the word of God alone.
In Malaysia, the majority of non-Roman Catholic churches, adhere to the teachings of the Bible and are autonomous, and do not subscribe to the authority of the Pope. Might I add also that the majority of Christians are apolitical, and therefore, concentrate on being 'good citizens' and 'avoid controversy'.
In modern times, Roman Catholics and Protestants bear no animosity towards one another, though some segments of both groups are very close to each other in practical Christianity because of the Charismatic movement, and others are still poles apart on the role of the Virgin Mary and the Pope and other extra-Biblical practices.
What is significant is that both groups renounce violence and killing. In fact, throughout history, true Christians who obeyed the teachings of Christ (as opposed to Churchians who followed the teachings of the churches ) and they are found in both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, thrived when the more established Roman Catholic church was in darkness, and those pious Christians never took up arms or followed the ways of violence. Some cite the Irish conflict between Protestants and Catholics but those who understand the root of the problem know it has nothing to do with religion but politics.
For more than three centuries, to be a Christian was to be a martyr. They obeyed Jesus' teaching that to "live by the sword is to die by the sword" and chose to be killed rather than disobey their Lord. It was never tenable for a Christian to take the life of his enemy to save himself. Hence, they and their children were put to death in humiliating and horrific ways. People today still confuse Western culture with Christianity though the truth is only a small proportion of Westerners are Christian.
Religion is controversial by nature because of its adherence to opposing and conflicting ideas about God, the unknown about life and death, spiritual matters, etc., although it has certain universal moral values in common with one another. What prevents religious conflicts from taking place more often is our commitment to tolerance and peace. When there is the absence of this tolerance, fighting and quarrelling follows. Afghanistan is a good example. We see Muslims butchering Muslims as the Northern Alliance takes over from the Taliban.
Perhaps, Farish may be able to suggest the correct interpretations of the verses that Dacudao has highlighted. In his response, he has only reminded us that the Roman Catholics that colonised the Philippines are as capable as Muslims, in perpetrating violence against their enemies. The world, reeling from the effects of the Sept 11 terror acts, needs to denounce violence and killings and there seems a contradiction in Islam, which Muslims claim to be a religion of peace but has those troubling verses that teach violence which, Muslims like Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, appeal to in justifying their dastardly deeds.
Until such time as we commit ourselves to an ethic of non-violence, there will be no peace and any religion that teaches violence will continue to be a threat against world peace. Mahatma Gandhi, drawing inspiration from Jesus, who incidentally is held in high regard in Islam, taught the world that political aims can be achieved by non-violent means.
Martin Luther King, Jr., the American civil rights campaigner, drew inspiration from Gandhi and did the same for black civil rights what Gandhi achieved for Indian independence.
Something must be terribly amiss if religionists who talk so much about God do the opposite of what He expects of them - to love and be kind to one another. The question Farish must answer is how shall Muslims respond to its enemies in the light of what the Quran teaches? To accuse Dacudao of being Islamophobic is unfair and evading the crux of the matter.
