I think the difference is in the way the violence is portrayed in the books. The Bible/Torah has incitements to quite bloody violence, by the Almighty Himself, but it is generally limited in scope. Such as incitement to violence in the break-out into Canaan, for example. There isn't a universal commandment from God or the Prophets to wage eternal war until all the unbelievers in the world are converted to the worship of the God of Abraham. Quite the contrary, the Hebrews make a claim to exclusivity. In the New Testament, Jesus is decidedly a-political altogether. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Christianity makes a claim to Universality, but that Universality isn't to be proclaimed by the sword.
Islam's problem, as my little self sees it, is that it's founder DID make universal incitements to violence. Looking at the history of the founding of Islam, we can see that this was a political motivation as much as anything else, IMO. But to a believer, to whom the words of Mohammed are the words of God's infallible Prophet, it can be made into a universal claim to eternal warfare against the unbeliever. I do believe Islam has built-in violence, in the Koran, and in the Hadiths. So does the Bible, but I think the political practicalities of Mohammed's life make that violence a bit more problematic.
Derek |
