Treatment of Women in Islam

As you read this article, do so from a purely secular perspective.  Don’t filter what you read with any religious dogma –Islamic or Christian, just pretend the world is secular and humanistic without any religious influence.  As you read, you will see things that disturb you, so instead of relying on religious dogma to shape your view, apply the principles of the “golden rule” to those things you find troubling.  I think you will find the outcome rather revealing, maybe even shocking.

In Islam, a man can have up to four wives at the same time (Sura 4:3). In addition, a man is given the right to beat his disobedient wife until she obeys (Sura 4:34, Bukhari 8:68). According the Quran, "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made some of them to excel others...and (as to) those on whose part you fear rebellion, admonish them, and leave them alone in beds apart, and beat them." Note that in one popular English translation of the Quran the term "lightly" is placed after "beat them." But "lightly" is not in the Arabic. Here are six translations of Sura 4:34.

An example of Muhammad himself beating his wife is documented in the Sahih Muslim Hadith, number 2127. (Note, the Arabic word for beat is the same word as how you would treat a slave or a camel.)

Muhammad himself actually had thirteen wives, two concubines/slaves, and four women of uncertain relationships. Of note, a Sura conveniently appeared to give Muhammad an exception to the 4-wife rule (Sura 33:50). One of his wives was six years old when he married her, but nine years old when he consummated his marriage with her. This relationship with a nine year old girl could be the basis for charges of pedophilia in Muslim cultures today. 

Also of interest, Muhammad married his daughter-in-law Zainab (Bukhari 9:516-518). He arranged for his adopted son Zaid to divorce Zainab so he could marry her. The divorce was prompted by the prophet's admiration for Zainab's beauty. Faced with the refusal of Zaid to dissolve his marriage, Muhammad had another convenient revelation from Allah, which not only commanded Zaid to give up his wife to Muhammad, but also decreed that there was no evil in a father-in-law taking his daughter-in-law away from his own adopted son (Sura 33:36-38).

Sura 2:223 explains that "Your wives are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like." (Again, some translations cover up the clear implication of this passage.) Is this how husbands should think of their wives? Is this an example of the perfect divinely inspired revealed truth dictated from Allah to Muhammad?

Men are superior to women in Islamic teaching. (See Suras 2:228, 4:34. Note: English translations vary considerably here. For example, in 4:34 some use the term "superior," while others say that men are "maintainers" or "guardians" of women.) In Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half that of men because the female mind is considered deficient (Sura 2:282, Bukhari 3:826). Women are only entitled to inherit half of what men do (Sura 4:11).

Prostitution is common in many Muslim countries, especially Africa. Muslims justify prostitution by marrying the woman for the night, which seems to be okay as long as they stay within the limit of four wives at one time. Prostitution may be partly a result of the attitude in Muslim societies that men can do whatever they want, while women have limited rights.

Genital mutilation of women is a widespread practice in Muslim countries. In some countries 90% of women are so mutilated. (See the link at the bottom of the article entitled "Islamic Sexuality."

The Quran and hadiths teach that it is morally acceptable to force women to have sex with their captors (Suras 4:24,  70:29-30; also Bukhari 8:600; 9:506; also Muslim Hadiths numbers 3371 and 3433). According to a reliable witness we personally know who grew up in Pakistan, rape is not prosecuted even today in the Muslim world in some circumstances, especially if the victim is a non-Muslim. Apparently at least some Muslims consider these passages as giving permission to rape. 

Interestingly, Islam teaches that the majority of people in hell are women (Bukhari 1:28, 1:301, and 2:161). According to the prophet of Islam, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women." This is an abominable idea to Christians.

Fundamentalist Christianity condones none of the above abuses of women. While Old Testament figures had multiple wives, this is seen as sinful behavior. Jesus insisted on the sanctity of marriage with one woman (Mark 10:5-12).

Two books of the Old Testament are named for (and are about) women. Women play an even more venerated and prominent role in the New Testament, especially in view of the low status afforded women in the culture in which Jesus lived (Matthew 5:32; 1 Corinthians 11:11-12; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 5:25-33.) 

There are 21 notable women mentioned favorably in the New Testament. While the Bible teaches different roles for women than for men, the New Testament elevates women in many ways. It teaches, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."

Carrying out this teaching, Christianity throughout history has enhanced, protected and treasured women. Jesus promotes love, compassion, gentleness and kindness.

Okay, back to the opening paragraph and the “golden rule” concept.  The golden rule says that humans should treat others [men and women relationships included] as one would like others to treat oneself. The concept describes a "reciprocal", or "two-way", relationship between one's self and others that treats both sides fairly and equally, and in a mutual fashion.

The golden rule has no particular religious orientation, in fact it is more humanistic in origin than religious.  It’s seems to be “common sense” among people... a way to overcome differences based on... “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  That old proverb literally means... what is good for a man is equally good for a woman; or, what a man can have or do, so can a woman have or do. That comes from an older proverb... “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

Muhammad says to abuse the woman... the child... anyone, and they defend their violence and brutality in all forms from the words of the Quran. There is no consideration for the "golden rule" in any of the teachings of the Quran.  There are no passages in the Quran that suggest men honor women, treat them well and care for children.  How can Islam, particularly in the treatment of women [and children],  be reconciled as a belief system that builds productive cultures and strong societies?    

More to come on the true nature of Islam... in the next articles.

_________________________________________________

Violence of Islam and the Peace of Christianity

The tradition of violence in Islam, which started with Muhammad, continues to this day. There is worldwide evidence that radicalized Muslims kill or otherwise persecute and kill people solely for being non-Muslims. This is well documented in Nigeria, Algeria, Sudan (where modern slavery is practiced), Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Malaysia.  ISIS has cast its specter across the middle east and looks to be expanding to Africa.

According to the organization the Voice of the Martyrs (website www.persecution.com or search for Voice of the Martyrs) 160,000 Christians are killed annually because of their faith—the vast majority being killed by Muslims. If Islam claims to be a religion of peace, why is there so much oppression in every Muslim country?

Islam is anti-semitic. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education approved school textbooks contained, as of the year 2000, a most disturbing teaching. The teaching, which is from the hadiths (Bukhari 4:176-177) as taught by Muhammad himself, is required instruction for all middle school children in Saudi Arabia. The teaching which is entitled "The Victory of Muslims Over Jews," says:

"The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them. So Jews would hide behind rocks and trees. Then the rocks and trees would call, 'Oh, Muslim. Oh, Servant of God. There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' "

Included with the text is a list of principles, including the following:

"Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers. They will never approve of the Muslims. Beware of them."

Yes, the Bible has its share of violence as well, particularly in the Old Testament. For example, God instructs the Israelites coming out of Egypt to take over the land of Canaan and kill all of the inhabitants. However, there is a clear difference from Quranic violence.

The Bible makes it clear that the Canaanite society deserved it as it was thoroughly polluted by their wretchedly evil practices, including the horror of child sacrifice. (Deuteronomy 9:1-6, 12:29-31, 18:9-14; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Chronicles 33:1-9; Ezra 9:11) Thus God used the Israelites to administer specific justice, just as he later used other societies to administer justice against the Israelites for their unrepentant sin (book of Jeremiah). 

Instances of violence recorded in the Bible are of a particular limited circumstance-situation in specific period of time, for a particular purpose established exclusively by Almighty God. But the Quran issues a general command to kill and destroy the enemies of Islam and such commands are applicable for all times and places and applicable to all people groups.  Wanton slaughter of innocent peoples who often have no idea why they are hated, targeted and killed.

While there is indeed violence in the Bible, one thing is certain—Jesus had a non-violent message. While some people have betrayed the peaceful message of Jesus in history, the teachings of Jesus have a consistent tone of peace, service, love, and humility. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. He never told us to kill anyone, and he disdained violence (exceptions being the unavoidable need of self-defense and just conflict). 

His followers echoed this command for peace. Just a few of the numerous New Testament passages that can be cited are: Matthew 5:1-12, 5:43-44, 9:36, 19:30, 26:50-52; Mark 9:35; Luke 6:27-36, 9:54-55, 10:30-37, 22:49-51, 23:32-34; John 10:7-18, 13:1-17; Galatians 5:22-23; Philippians 2:6-8; 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and 1 Peter 3:8-9. I encourage you to read these moving passages, and then consider what the world would be like if everyone practiced the teachings of Jesus.

With the coming of Christ to bear God's judgment, the warfare of God's people as described in the Old Testament was converted to spiritual warfare in the New Testament (Ephesians 6:10-18). In their present warfare, Christians are commanded not to curse, but to bless their personal enemies, overcoming all evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). 

Jesus warned, "The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God" (John 16:2-4). While these words were spoken to his disciples, they have a powerful ring today.

There is nothing like the Christian concept of "love your enemies" or "turn your other cheek" (Luke 6:27-37) found in Islam. While Christianity says to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 19:19), the Quran instructs its followers not to even take Christians or Jews as friends (Suras 3:118, 5:51, 64, 60:1-3)!

Another interesting point is that the Islamic concept of charity is different from the Christian concept. Muslims are required to give alms to the poor, but only to the Muslim poor. In this way, the Muslim's wealth is purified. The biblical concept of charity is not limited to any ethnic group. In fact, Jesus used illustrations that encouraged helping those outside the faith (Luke 10:30-37).

Islam is a religion of power and glory. Muslims find it hard to believe that Christians could worship Jesus, given his lack of political power and apparent defeat by the authorities. They fail to acknowledge that Jesus was the ultimate victor as he conquered even death.

Islam is more than a religion; it is an ideology with a clear sociopolitical agenda. There is no such thing as separation of church and state in orthodox Islam. Western notions of democracy and freedom are in opposition to orthodox Islam. Mankind must be controlled by Islamic law in total, and not be allowed to stray from the authority of Allah. Islam is thus a totalitarian utopian worldview. The fact that freedom of religion does not exist in Muslim countries is evidence supporting the view that Islam wants nothing short of global domination achieved through violent conflict leading to political control.

Islam must declare war on unbelief.  Dr. Samuel Schlorff, an expert on Islam with Arab World Ministries explains that, "Muslims believe that Islam's destiny is to extend its control until the whole Dar al-Harb [which means 'House of War'—that is, the whole non-Muslim world] is subject to Islamic law in an Islamic state, and this includes the use of force." But since there is no pure Islamic state, Islam is considered to be at war against the whole world. See Sura 8:39.

Further, as explained by former radical Islamist, Hassan Butt, many Muslim preachers teach that since Islam is in a state of war against the globe, any Muslim is allowed to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is otherwise granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind, and belief. In Dar al-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking innocent people.

An interesting conclusion emerges regarding the Quran and the history of the lands where its teachings are applied... the more a society has used the Quran as a source of law, the more oppressive the state becomes. Look across the middle eastern countries when Islam is dominate, and you see oppressive cultures and restrictive societies with harsh laws.  Contrary to the oppression of the Quran, the more a society has used the Bible as a foundation of law, the more freedom the society and its peoples experience.

One commonly hears in the press that Islam is a religion of peace. This is true only in one sense... peace will come when all competing religions have been brought into submission to Islam (Sura 9:29). Muslims who say Islam is a religion of peace, can only say so by ignoring or rationalizing away its violent commands.  In doing that, any Muslim is failing to hold the tenants of the Islamic faith and is subject to death.

These issues explain why Muslim leaders around the world were so subdued in their condemnation of the 9/11/01 attack on America. Even in America, the common response was, "Yes, the attack was wrong, but....."  It is what follows the "but" that is important in understanding their real views.

Muslims are taught that the Old Testament is like grade school; the New Testament is like high school; and the Quran is like college. Islam claims to be the final, most perfect religion. If so, why does it seem to revert back to unjustified violence even worse than the Old Testament? 

Muslims who commit aggressive acts of violence are acting consistently with fundamentalist Islam. Christians who might commit aggressive acts of violence are acting contrarily to fundamentalist Christianity.

Do not be mislead... Islam has a dark side.  

More to come in the Next Installment on Comparing Christianity and Islam... 

____________________________________________

Comparing Christianity and Islam...

Christianity and Islam... the two religions contrast sharply even in their positive aspects.  To understand how adherents respond to the fundamentals of each religion, we must understand the core values of each religions founder and the instructions contained in each religions guide-book for followers.

Let’s be blunt, the morality of the Qur'an is amateurish and frustratingly obscure for those who try to compare it to what is contained in the Bible.  Most of Islam's holiest book is devoted toward distinguishing and heaping abuse on unbelievers.

There are no verses that promote universal love and brotherhood.  The few verses that are sometimes held up as examples of tolerance and peace generally require separation from textual and historical context.

The difference between Christianity and Islam starts at the top... with their respective founders.  There are sharp differences between the religion of Muhammad and Jesus.  The religious practices of adherents are almost certainly rooted in the teachings and instructions of each leader as he defined the core principles and values of the respective religions. Each religion therefore is defined by the teachings and lifestyle examples set by Jesus and Muhammad.

Let’s start by examining what each founder said with regard to the fundamental conduct and attitude of potential followers.

Muslims are told that their prophet Muhammad, a slave-owner, sexual glutton, thief and killer, is the most "beautiful pattern of conduct" and "example" for mankind to follow (Qur'an 33:21), as well as the "exalted standard of character" (Qur'an 68:4).

Christians are told to emulate Jesus - a man with a servant heart - and "walk, even as he walked" (1 John 2:6).  Unlike Muhammad, who ordered military assaults against Christians, Jesus told his followers not to resort to aggression which almost always leads to violence, but to pray for one's enemies.

These two men could hardly have been more different in how they lived or in what they taught others.  Why should we not then expect starkly contrasting legacies - from the conduct of their closest companions to the livability of modern-day countries influenced by the predominance of one founder's teachings over the other?

To get an understanding of Christianity and Islam, we must consider the fundamentals of each religion.  We can call it “orthodoxy”  a believers close adherence to the teachings of each religion and counsel of its founder.  Such believers are typically viewed as fundamentalist.   The term fundamentalist has come to be a pejorative term. However, it need not be. Fundamentalism is a synonym for orthodoxy. A religious fundamentalist is one who is faithful to the foundational tenets of the religion he or she follows.

It is common today to profess or practice a religion in ways that are not orthodox. There are, for example, nominal Christians, nominal Muslims, and nominal Jews. They take on the label of the religion, but not the beliefs or practices. They may even attend worship services, but in their own mind modify, temper or reject many of the core beliefs.  

Anybody can make up their own religion, by taking from the Bible whatever they want and tearing out the parts they don't want. But this is disingenuous, hypocritical, eternally dangerous and is probably heretical to whichever religion one claims allegiance. On what basis does one claim to know more about the religion than the founders of the religion themselves?

The objective of this article is to reference what the source documents say concerning these two major world religions, Christianity and Islam. That is, we will explore and compare the Bible and the Quran plus the written traditions of Islam.  

This review is critically important.  Most Christians know very little about Islam, the Muslim religion. Likewise, most Muslims have mistaken ideas about Christianity. Indeed, many people of both faiths do not even know enough about their own religion to validate its truth claims. This exercise is also useful for people who are under the false belief that all religions are equally valid, or that all religions lead to God. I will clearly show that Christianity and Islam have irreconcilable differences.  If you are seriously interested in pursuing truth, then the following discussion should be extremely interesting.

Our axiom will be... Truth is discernible. At least, what is not true is discernible. Applying rules of logic, reason and evidence one can show that a truth-claim is not true by identifying arbitrariness or inconsistency in the claim.

Similarities between Christianity and Islam

Christians and Muslims have some beliefs in common. Both belief systems agree that there is one God who created the universe and is sovereign in the lives of humans. We agree that God is the source of justice and morality. We agree that there is life after death in heaven or hell.

Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims both consider such things as pornography and licentious living as pollutants to society. In fact, one of the reasons for the strong negative reaction to western civilization in Muslim countries is the influence of such practices emanating from the West.

But there are many things upon which the two religions disagree. These areas of disagreement are critical things. The points of disagreement touch on every important religious doctrine. Indeed, the disagreements are so severe as to be irreconcilable. Lets look at these issues point by point.

Overall Tone of the Two Religions

Most Muslims are exceptionally gracious and peace-loving people. And Islam has elements of peacefulness in it. For example, Muslims point to Suras 109:6 or 2:256 which claim there is no compulsion in religion, even though these passages are often interpreted in Islamic nations to mean that "there is no competition in religion" within their borders. Another passage is Sura 29:46 which says not to dispute with People of the Book (Jews and Christians) unless they do wrong. Also, Sura 41:34 instructs that one should respond to evil with doing good deeds to the evil doer. Others include Suras 2:190, 2:256, 5:8, 5:28, 5:32, 8:61, 109:6.

However, the message is inconsistent. Anyone who wants to commit violence has perfect justification for doing so from the Quran. While violence in the Quran is sometimes for self-defense; at other times it is open-ended aggression.

Many passages in the Quran exhort Muslims to hate or kill or terrorize infidels (non-Muslims) wherever they find them. See Suras 2:190-193, 2:216, 2:244, 3:56, 3:142, 3:151, 4:56, 4:74 (beheading), 4:76, 4:84, 4:89, 4:91, 4:95, 4:104, 5:51, 5:32-38, 7:96-99, 8:12-15 (beheading), 8:39, 8:57-60, 8:65-67, 9:5, 9:14, 9:20-30, 9:38-41, 9:73, 9:88, 9:111, 9:123, 17:16, 18:65-81, 21:44, 22:18-22, 25:52, 33:60-62, 47:3-4 (beheading), 47:35, 48:16-17, 48:29, 61:4, and 66:8-12. (English translators of the Quran sometimes try to soften the true Arabic meaning of some of these passages. For example, to "fight" really means to kill in Arabic.) There are various versions of the Quran available online so you can look these passages up for yourself. 

There are dozens of violent prescriptive statements like those above in the Quran. Osama bin Laden in the famous videotape discovered in Afghanistan in late 2001 is quoted as saying, "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." These words echo language in the Quran itself. Such calls to violence are not mere distortions of the Quran by extreme radicals who twist the Quran for their violent ends; violence is an integral part of Islam. Violence is Muslim doctrine. Just as many Christians are ignorant of what is actually in the Bible, many Muslims are not aware of such passages in the Quran, or choose to ignore them.

Unbelievers in Islam receive persistent chastisement in the Quran. They are described as the "worst beasts in God's sight" (Sura 8:7). Muslims are instructed not to obey unbelievers (Sura 33:1) nor to make friends with them (Suras 58:14-15, 60:1, and 60:13). These commands open up numerous questions about the duty of Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries or work for a non-Muslim employer.

But the Quran is not the only basis for violence in Islam. The example of Muhammad himself laid the foundation for violence via his deeds and commands, which are found in the hadiths. Eleven percent of the pages of the Bukhari Hadiths mention Holy War (jihad). Military jihad is a traditional and authentic part of Islam.

There are two meanings for jihad. One meaning is a personal spiritual aspect to kill sinful desires. It also means to use violence to spread the faith. Muslims are taught that those who fight and die in a jihad have their sins forgiven, and they are rewarded with a sensual and luxurious life in paradise. In fact, this is the only way they can be certain of going to heaven! See Suras 3:157-158, 3:169-171, 3:194-195, 4:74, 4:94-97, 22:58-59, 52:17-23, 56:10-38. Also see Bukhari 4:63, 72, 80, 85, 137, 175, 216, 266. So the killing of non-Muslims offers the religion's highest reward.

Additionally, there is a credible tradition in Islam that says that there are three specific reasons someone may be killed: murder, adultery, or leaving Islam (apostasy). See Suras 4:89 and 9:5,12.  "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." At least one Muslim country, Pakistan, has a blasphemy law. This law says that anyone who insults Muhammad may be put to death. If you follow Islamic events around the world you will regularly see violent actions against Muslims who convert to Christianity.

Another example of the violence in Islam is the way it deals with a thief. Sura 5:38 says, "And as for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut of their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise." Muslims do this even to their children. If a child were to steal out of hunger, a true Muslim would not show compassion and feed the child; they would sever his hand at his wrist to drive home the lessons of Allah.

Muhammad first claimed to have a vision from God in the year 610 AD. The first 13 years of his ministry were marked by peaceful preaching in the city of Mecca. During this period Muhammad seems to have been a well-meaning man who sought to oppose paganism and evil in his day.

However, in the year 623 he became a political leader in the city of Medina. With his political power came a new aggressive behavior. He attacked pagan caravans and used the sword to spread his religion.

Muhammad personally led or orchestrated 66 bloody invasions. Muhammad assassinated many of his opponents during his lifetime. One particularly famous event was his battle against the Quraiza Jews, where women and children were sold into slavery, and hundreds of captured men were executed. Even some of his own people were horrified by his actions. 

There is a principle in Islam of "abrogation." This means that when there is a contradiction in the Quran, the later verses cancel out, or at least modify earlier verses. Since the warring verses came during the Muhammad's later Medina period, they matter more than the earlier peacemaking ones. (The Suras in the Quran are in order from the longest to the shortest rather than in chronological order.)

According to Jihad Watch, "The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a 'religion of peace'."

More to come on comparing Christianity and Islam in the NEXT installment... 

A Christian Defense of JUST WAR Theory

One might be willing to grant that the just war concept sounds reasonable and just, when considered in the context of secular moral philosophy and international politics. But we are Christians, and our conclusions concerning this and all other issues must be grounded in the will of God as given to us in the Bible. 

Thus we must ask, and not just once, but every time conflict disrupts peace... how can the idea of a just war be embraced by those who accept the Bible as God’s inerrant Word, and who are fully aware that it teaches us not to murder, to love our enemies, and to turn the other cheek when attacked?  Is participation in a just war consistent with all the teaching of the Bible?  

We note first that God himself has ordained civil government (the institution, not individual governments) for the express purpose of protecting innocent citizens from being treated unjustly (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:14). This includes the legitimate use of lethal weaponry to bring retributive justice upon those perpetrating evil upon the innocent (Romans 13:4). In other words, one of the God-given purposes of civil–government is to protect the innocent through methods of self-defense against aggressor nations or groups.  This is the basic foundation of the just war concept.

We must also recognize that God’s Word makes a distinction between what is required of individuals when they are subjected to attack, and what is required of governments when such attacks occur (either upon individuals or upon the nation as such). This distinction is emphasized in the Old Testament, especially in the Law of Moses. The government (judges and civil leaders) was intended to apply eye-for-eye justice against evildoers. The three eye-for-eye texts (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:17-21; Deuteronomy 19:21) refer not to individuals but to courts of law. This extended to warfare itself, which was of two kinds: defensive (Exodus 17:8-16) and judicial (Numbers 31:1).

At the same time the Law of Moses establishes a different standard for interpersonal relationships: neighbor-love is commanded, while hatred and retaliation are forbidden: “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart... You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:17, 18)^.

Many Christians have assumed that such teaching was first given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5:38-48), but that assumption is incorrect. The distinction between governmental retributive justice (as exercised in defensive warfare) and the prohibition of individual vengeance has always been God’s purpose for his people.

We see the same distinction in Paul’s teaching in Romans 12 and 13. His teaching about government as God’s instrument of justice in Romans 13:1-4 is immediately preceded by the prohibition of personal retribution in Romans 12:17-21. He says it very clearly in verse 17... “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone”) and verse 19 (“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written...‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Paul then explains that God exacts such vengeance—his own vengeance—through civil government (Romans 13:4).

When Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:38... that we must not just resist evil, but must turn the other cheek, he is not repudiating the justice principle meant to be used by civil government but is repeating only what God has always required of individuals when personally attacked. He is not introducing some new teaching, a so-called “higher law of love.” He is reminding us that it has always been wrong to use the rules that apply to governments as a license for personal revenge. So said the Law of Moses, and so says the Apostle Paul. This is God’s will for us as individuals, and we make a grave mistake when we try to apply it to civil–government. It is perfectly consistent with the concept of a just war.

A third point, is that both of these standards (the one for individuals and the one for governments) are holy and right. Contrary to the teaching of many Christian pacifists, there is no hint that God’s will for governments, even the part about applying the sword, is somehow evil. Such pacifists grant that government’s use of force is sometimes necessary, but they regard it as a necessary evil which as such cannot be participated in by Christians. Thus the sphere of God’s kingdom and the sphere of civil government are mutually exclusive. Only the Christian way of nonviolence is right, while the government’s use of force and violence is evil—a necessary evil, to be sure, but evil nonetheless.

This interpretation is simply wrong. God himself has ordained government and appointed it as his own instrument for dispensing his own wrath and vengeance upon evildoers. God’s stated will for governments is no less good and moral and righteous than his stated will for individuals. When government is carrying out its divinely specified functions, it is doing what is “holy and righteous” especially when it is dispensing God’s retributive justice upon evildoers. And if it is right as such, then it is right for any human being to be a part of it, even a Christian.

Someone may object that participating even in a just war seems to contradict the whole ethic of love and the very nature of God as love. Two comments may be made. First, God is love (1 John 4:8), but he is not love only. He is also a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29; see also Hebrews 10:30, 31), the fire of wrath and vengeance and retribution. Many pacifists forget this aspect of God’s nature.

The main point of the “just war concept” is not to maim and kill the enemy, but to protect the innocent and law-abiding.  Would this not be an expression of neighbor-love? “Responsible love” is thus the ultimate basis for a Christian’s endorsement of the just-war concept. 

Is a Christian a hypocrite if he owns a gun?

The arguments are endless... You can’t be Christian and against gun control. Guns kill people.  We need more gun control laws. How can you claim to be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time? How can you claim to be pro-gun and pro-capital punishment? Gun control laws do NOT prevent gun-related crime.  Saying we need more gun control laws to keep people from being murdered is like saying we need to ban forks and spoons so people will not get fat.  Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes and just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

What does the Bible say about self-defense?  Is a Christian a hypocrite if he owns a gun and uses it for self-defense if the occasion arises? Let’s examine the Bible and see what it says. But before I do that, let’s consider the view of a pacifist.

Let’s be clear... God is NOT a pacifist and neither does His Word teach pacifism. We read in Exodus 15:3 “The LORD is a man of war….” David thanks God for teaching him the ways of conflict... we read in Psalms 144:1 “...Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to fight...”

Despite these and other references in the Bible, a pacifist believes that war or defending oneself is never proper. Their reasoning is that there is nothing important enough to go to war over or ever shoot another person in self-defense. All national and international disputes should be settled by peaceful means rather than by force. They are opposed to all military ideals, preparedness, standing army, etc. Further, many believe it is never right to kill anyone for any reason, under any circumstance. Pacifists do not believe in capital punishment for that reason.

Among those who label themselves as Christian pacifists are the Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites.  In general they believe Christ’s teachings, such as that in Matthew 5:38-48 (turn the other cheek and go the extra mile), forbids believers from becoming involved in any form of violence, killing or warfare, even for the protection of their lives, the protection of their loved ones, their own property, and their country. But the true focus of this passage is how to handle persecution; it is not referring to self-defense when your life is in danger.

Perhaps the most common verse gun control advocates use to support their position is Exodus 20:13. The verse says, “Thou shalt not kill.” They mistakenly believe the Commandment is a blanket command covering war, capital punishment, personal protection, etc. This is a clear misunderstanding of the word kill and the commandment.

The Hebrew word translated “kill” in Exodus 20:13, ratsach, is translated “murder” 14 times (Numbers 35:16, 17,18,19,21,30,31; 1 Kings 6:32; Job 24:14; Psalm 94:6; Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 7:9; Hosea 6:9) and “slayer” 17 times (Numbers 35:11,25,26, 27,28; Deuteronony 4:42; 19:3,4,6; Joshua 20:3,5,6; 21:13,21, 27,32,38). Bible Commentator Adam Clark says in his commentary, “this commandment, which is general, prohibits murder of every kind.”

Dr. John Gill further explains in his commentary, “killing of men in lawful war, or in defense of a man’s self, when his own life is in danger, or the execution of malefactors by the hands or order of the civil magistrate (capital punishment), and killing a man at unawares (by accident), without any design, are not to be reckoned breaches of this law.”  The Hebrew words in this Commandment literally mean “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice and murderous intent.”

The “Thou Shall Not Kill” Commandment therefore prohibits the taking the life of another through private malice and revenge... cold blooded murder.  There are at least four circumstances in the Bible when killing is not murder.

Military service and Law enforcement – Governments are charged with three responsibilities to their citizens: First, Protecting Citizens; Second, Punishing Evil; and Third, Promoting Order (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:2).

Martin Luther said, “War for the sake of war is sin, but war for the sake of defense is duty. The power of temporal rulers is to be turned only against the wicked, to hold them in check and keep them at peace, and to protect and save the righteous.”

It is not murder to kill a person in the line of duty in law enforcement or in the military. This is clearly stated in Romans 13:4... “For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Capital punishment – It is not murder to put criminals to death for heinous crimes. The Bible plainly says that the man who takes a life is to forfeit his own life (Genesis 9:6). The Law of Moses called for capital punishment in the case of murder (Leviticus 24:17; Deuteronomy 19:11-13), adultery (Le. 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:21,22), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), incest (Leviticus 20:17), and other things as well. 

The avenger of death in Old Testament times was a relative or friend who put the murderer to death (Deuteronomy 19:11-13). God allowed for this, and made provision for “cities of refuge” for those who had killed someone accidentally. However that has changed today. In the New Testament, God has given only civil government the authority to put offenders to death. In Romans 13 we see that God has given nations the authority to “bear the sword” against evil. Civil government is charged with the orderly administration of society, which would include appropriate capital punishment to remove evildoers.

Accidental Death – As tragic as it is, it is not murder to kill someone accidentally (Numbers 35:20-23). It is a horrible thing to kill someone accidentally.  However, civil government have established laws that consider the circumstances contributing to accidental death and can impose appropriate penalties for what is often deemed carelessness, acts and choices that may have contributed to accidental death. 

Self-Defense – It is not murder to defend oneself or your loved ones and property (Exodus 22:2-3). If someone broke into the home at night and the intruder was killed, the one who killed him is NOT guilty of murder. If it is in the daytime and the intruder is there to steal and not to molest or kill, you are not to kill him. But, if possible, detain him so the proper civil authorities can deal with the crimes committed or attempted.

I also believe Proverbs 24:11-12 calls us to intervene if someone is accosted by a lawless thief, robber, murderer, etc.  We are called to do all we can to intervene and stop it. We read,... “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it?” Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

Then there is Deuteronomy 22:23-27 which deals with rape. Verse 27 has in view a woman who is raped and she calls for help and the verse says “and there was none to save her.” Clearly the implication is that if someone would have heard, there would have been a moral duty to intervene and protect her from being raped, by whatever means available. To stand by and do nothing would be immoral, and such a person would be accountable to God for failure to intervene. This is where the theory of pacifists and gun-control advocates fall apart.  They oppose any means of self-defense which be definition is a form of non-intervention. The flawed theory of non-intervention says... that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to a police officer how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound in the chest!

Given all the circumstance that can befall any of us at any time, it would seem reasonable that God wanted his people armed to protect themselves and others in harms way. God did not plan for just an army to be armed. The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They did not send in the Marines. The people defended themselves. (1 Samuel 25:13).

A good example of people protecting themselves is found in Nehemiah 4:17-18 -- “who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. But the man who sounded the trumpet stayed with me.”

Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm... “God chose new leaders when war came to the city gates, but not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel.” They were vulnerable to their enemies. They had no weapons to protect themselves.  Clearly a serious mistake.

That brings us to the New Testament. Did you know that our Lord instructed his disciples to buy a weapon? Look at Luke 22:36 “ He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.  Our Lord wanted his followers to be prepared to protect themselves, because he knew he would not be around much longer to intervene for them. It is obvious that they obeyed him. We see this in Matthew 26:50-54... Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.  With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?  But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

What was Jesus saying? Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross for our sins. Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He did not say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: “Peter, this is not the right time for a fight. If you use your sword for improper purposes you will die!” 

Our natural reaction to those who initiate violence against us and wish to do us grave bodily harm is to protect ourselves and those we love.

While self-defense is not an overarching theme in the Bible, it does offer many examples that clearly allow one the right of self-defense.  Jesus himself said if a homeowner knew a thief was coming to his house he would not allow his home to be broken into (Matthew 24:42-44). This example shows that God gives us the right to protect our possessions and to do what is needed to defend ourselves (even though it says nothing about killing someone). 

While the Bible does not speak of modern firearms, it does confirm that individuals could and should own and have the right to use a weapon for self-defense in certain situations. It is a huge responsibility to own a gun and an even bigger one if you choose to carry one and use it.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 speaks of the realities of life in a fallen world… There is a time for everything,    and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die,   a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal,   a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh,  a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,  a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up,  a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate,  a time for war and a time for peace.

The Bible supports personal self-defense.

What does the Bible say about personal self-defense?

Many people have a confused view about what the Bible says in regards to self-defense. The law given in Exodus 22:2-3 says that if a man breaks into a home to steal at night, the home-owner has the right defend himself and his family, even to the point of killing. In daylight, when the home-owner can see that he is there to steal and not to kill, he cannot kill the thief in defense of his person or property. 

In Luke 22:37-39, Jesus acknowledged the necessity to be appropriately armed. In Proverbs 25:21-22 and Romans 12:17, Scriptures say to not repay evil with evil, but to bless your enemies. And in Matthew 5:39, Jesus said if someone slaps your right cheek, offer them your left as well. 

The Bible offers very few laws regarding self-defense, but plenty of examples. When Lot and his people were captured, Abraham had no problem rescuing him with force (Genesis 14:13-16). All such engagements are marked by aggressive action, violence and result in death.  In Luke 22:36, Jesus advised His disciples to possess a self-defense weapon – a sword, along with their other provisions. Then again, David refused to harm Saul, even though Saul was trying to kill him. And Jesus scolded Peter for using a sword to fight off the guards that were taking Jesus away (John 18:10-11).

What's the difference? The timing and the situation. In a situation with an unknown aggressor with unknown intent, as in Exodus 22:2, it is appropriate to use self-defense. If the offense has already occurred, as in Proverbs 25 and Romans 12, we should not take the law into our own hands, but seek justice through the civil authorities. David refused to kill Saul because Saul was God's anointed king with granted authority. Jesus condemned Peter's action not because of his intent to defend Christ, but because Peter was getting in the way of God's plan for the guards to take Jesus. The Matthew 5 passage is stickiest. It appears to say that we are to take whatever abuse comes our way quietly. But a "slap on the cheek" didn't mean physical violence. It refers to an insult against one’s honor. We are not to defend our honor with physical violence, but shrug it off.

America is a country that loves the right of self-defense, the essence of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 290,000,000 to 330,000,000 – more than any other country on earth.

According to conservative scholars, the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Second Amendment was to guarantee citizens "the biblical right of self-defense.” 

Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped frame the Second Amendment in the First Congress, wrote, "... to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

The Founding Fathers of America recognized that "the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is to make sure a citizen can defend against any kind of illegal force that comes against you, whether that is from a neighbor, whether that is from an outsider or whether that is from your own government."

Obviously, the Bible does not specifically address such rights as granted in the Second Amendment or the many issues of gun control, since firearms like we use today were not available in ancient times. But accounts of warfare and the use of weaponry, such as swords, spears, bows and arrows, darts and slings are well-documented in the pages of the Bible.

An important question emerges... what is the biblical perspective on the right to bear arms... and use them?

Let’s start in the Old Testament and the men of Israel.  How did the army of Israel work?  In terms of weapons, was there a central armory where men called to defend the nation, or carryout God’s commands against a hostile people would report and be equipped for battle?  No, there was no central repository for checking-in and checking-out weapons.  The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation was confronted by an enemy. God didn't send in a special force, or select group... the people defended themselves and were armed at all times.  We see this clearly in passages like 1 Samuel 25:13...  And David said to his men, "Every man strap on his sword!" And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage.  So, each man had a sword ready to be strapped on and used when required.  And in Psalm 144:1, David wrote... "Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle..."

Besides instruments of warfare, weapons were used in the Bible for the purpose of self-defense. Nowhere in Scripture is this forbidden. In the Old Testament, we find this example of God sanctioning self-defense... "If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder." (Exodus 22:2)

In the New Testament, Jesus sanctioned the use of weapons for self-defense. While giving his farewell discourse to the disciples before going to the cross, he instructed the apostles to purchase side arms to carry for self-protection. He was preparing them for the extreme opposition and persecution they would face in future missions...  And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:35-38)

Conversely, as soldiers seized Jesus at his arrest, our Lord warned Peter (in Matthew 26:52-54 and John 18:11) to put away his sword: "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."  Some scholars believe this statement was a call to Christian pacifism, while others understand it simply to mean in a general sense that "violence breeds more violence."

Pacifist?  Is that what Christians are to be?  What about gun-control laws and personal gun ownership by a Christian?  Can a person support the second amendment, own a gun or many guns and be a sincere Christian?  

NEXT TIME... we will probe these questions.