From an article in today’s NYTimes:
Shiite clerics and politicians have been successfully urging their followers not to retaliate against a fierce campaign of sectarian bombings, in which Shiites have accounted for most of the 566 Iraqis killed since American troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities on June 30.
“Let them kill us,” said Sheik Khudair al-Allawi, the imam of a mosque bombed recently. “It’s a waste of their time. The sectarian card is an old card and no one is going to play it anymore. We know what they want, and we’ll just be patient. But they will all go to hell.” (anyone else think that that last line is funny?)
“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5.39)
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Is 53.7)
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. (Rom 12.19)
COMMENTS
10 responses to “(Christ-like) Passivity in Iraq”
Leave a Reply
"But they will all go to hell" is not a funny add-on; rather, it is the theological basis for this version of "passivity." It has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ and His "forgive them for they know not what they do" passivity.
I completely agree that the "they will go to hell" is a far cry from Jesus' words on the cross.
Still, there is any element of leave-it-up-to-God and unwillingness to defend oneself that I think is resonant. Thoughts?
I have struggled with the seeming contradiction in Jesus' words from the cross and Paul's admonition in the Romans 12:19 verse you cite. Was Paul backing away from a radical form of forgiveness that Jesus advocated? Maybe. But then, Paul merely says that vengeance is God's, not ours, and that if and when there is "hell to pay" that is entirely up to God. God can do whateverthehell He pleases, so to speak. This is a very different thing from saying, "I can be passive now, because God IS going to fry all these SOBs in hell one day." That is how I read the Iraqi "passivity", which is common everywhere you look, Christian or Muslim. Very thought-provoking post!
I don't think there is a contradiction between Jesus and Paul in Romans 12:19, especially in light of the Christian idea of vocation. This is because the next set of verses is all about caring for our enemies and in 13 submitting to earthly authorities.
The problem here is Islam does not understand this idea at all because it is inherently a theology of Glory. For a muslim the idea of suffering and God using suffering as part of our vocation just doesn't compute. Also the idea of leaving judgement as God's vocation, because we who deserve judgement have been graciously forgiven is once again a foriegn concept. The only reason there is "Shite Passivity" is because they are a total minority, not because they have been given some sort of amazing insight into human passivity before God. The very words "but they will all go to hell" proves it.
It's a short quote, so this all may be conjecture…
I'm not so sure that their passive non-violence is due to their being in the minority, but rather born out of a non-violent religious ethic. The imam seems to indicates that the Sunni muslims are going to hell because they have practiced violence.
It does seem that this non-violence is rooted in an assurance of Allah's benevolence towards themselves and since they are confident that God will act on their behalf, they can passively suffer violence.
RJ… well done! who would have thought that one could find similarities between Christianity and Islam on non-violent grounds?
I would say though that the difference between in Christianity has to do with the us vs. them mentality of it. So while Christianity sees everyone under the same judgment, this imam (much like the OT concept of justice) sees a clear divide between "us" and "them."
Todd,
Great point.
There may be superficial similarities between some forms of Christianity and Islam in terms of a common hope in divine retribution on one's enemies that results in a practical non-violence. But in Christianity, this type of "non-violence" comes smack up against Jesus' teaching to "love your enemies." There is to me a massive difference between "love and forgive your enemies, because when you were enemies of God, he forgave you" and "don't kill your enemies, because God will kill them for you." I don't know that Islam has the first idea as a basis for a non-violent ethic, but I am open to enlightenment on the point.
Actually upon further reading of this article and going over the Koran, I think to lump this into an idea of passivity and non-violent ethic might be a bit of a stretch, although incredibly thought provoking.
I think we need to remember that even Muslims are under the soviergn hand of God, and therefore (although hard to believe) under the restrain of his moral law. I actually would argue that this is a demonstration of the 1st use of the law at work. God using the law through conscience, social constraints, and legal structure to maintain some sort of civility and as a result demonstrating the reality of what is often called common grace. This is evident by the fact that many of Shiites are now working in the Iraqi Government and there one time militias are now part of the police force.
With that in mind, I am going to go back to my first point and argue that Shi'ite passivity is clearly a result of them being in the minority. This is because, while maybe reading different Hadiths, the Koran for Shi'ites and Sunnies is the same, and unlike the Bible, there is no such thing as a non-violent ethic in Islam.
The Koran clerly actually teaches retaliation against those who cause a person harm or injury, and retaliation when one is in the minority is never a good idea. Rather it would be better to work through the systems of government, especially when the NYT is now watching.
Islam is clearly an active religion, "taking the bull by the horns" and impressing God. Thank God for the 1st use, in my life, and in the Middle East.
This may change things a bit, but according to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14fri1.html?_r=1 the shi'ites are in the majority and currently have power in Iraq. They've always been in the majority, it's just that Saddam Hussein favored the Sunnis because they owned the oil land.
Todd, Great find. However, that is actually a disputed fact. I believe most American states have the estimates around 60% Shi'ia and 40% Sunni. Anyway, many argue that those figures only consider Arabs and do not take into account the Kurdish and Turkman population in the Northern.
Ha. Ha. Ha. I love this blog! Where else can you go and try and find a link to the Gospel with the population make-up of Iraq.