This short essay is undertaken with a sense of fear and trembling since it involves religion. When one person or one sect or one country calls another infidels and apostates, it would almost always be a slur. Generally speaking, my religious involvement is minimal because this ancient non-believer would seem to have no dog in this fight among religionists. As a man who is uninvolved in religious matters, it would seem to permit me to ponder why ostensibly holy people hurl such strong words at other people of great faith. Non-involved men like me are entitled to a strong sense of bafflement.
In my limited involvement in any religious affairs, it would seem to me that when one person or a religious group attempts to fasten the label of infidels or apostates on another religious group, those words spring more from hatred than from love or compassion. These words are not inspirational words; they are more like fighting words, it would seem to me.
There is a supreme irony here. Virtually all religions known to me, bill themselves as beacons of love and understanding and great compassion. The Jews, the Christians, the Hindus and the Buddhists all claim that their tenets of faith are ones of love. Are we missing something here? Is it possible for a man or a group to have so much love and so much compassion that they fling the charge of infidels and apostates at another group as an exercise in sympathetic understanding? If that is the case, we may have stumbled onto something here, but that most likely is not the case.
As much as we would like these essays to contribute to understanding among all people, it is feared that this essay will probably solve nothing. What is involved in this piece is a series of troublesome questions that occur to an outsider who has no stake in who is an infidel or who is an apostate. Remember, this old essayist who claims to have no dog in this fight, is within hailing distance of his heavenly reward and he would not want any partisans to cast a thumbs down vote against him when it comes to who will wear angel wings in the hereafter.
The questions that are asked in this piece are asked in an innocent desire to learn more, particularly if my non-conventional views cause me to be called an infidel or an apostate. If that is how my views affect others, it seems a matter of elementary fairness to find out why such strong words or slurs are invoked in religious matters where it is claimed that peace, justice and understanding love are the hallmarks of every expression. Again, my sense of bafflement becomes apparent, particularly when my efforts are as a non-combatant who aspires to being a peacemaker.
It might logically be asked why do religious thoughts occur to a man who disassociates himself from the mysteries and the fantasies that permeate organized religion. The simple answer is that, in history, more wars and more cruelty flow from religious disputes than from any other cause. Bush calls our ill-conceived efforts in Iraq a “crusade,” which arouses the absolute deepest Arab and Islamic anger. Then there is the long-standing dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians which has religion at its core. The evangelist Pat Robertson said today (10-5-04) that if Bush tries to give East Jerusalem to the Arabs, who have an historic home there, born again Protestants will vote against him. This is of vital importance because Robertson says he regularly receives messages directly from God. It is assumed that the originator of those sacred messages is the Protestant God or Goddess. Perhaps Allah or Nirvana and all other Gods have different messages, but fire-eater Pat ignores them.
Historically, persons who subscribe to the faith of Islam have long considered Jews as infidels and apostates. As the United States continues to be drawn into the affairs of Islamic countries, we also find repeated references to Americans being infidels and apostates because this country, regardless of its diversity of religious expression, is considered a Christian country by the Muslim world. And by Bush as well. Now we have Moqtada al Sadr who wishes to achieve respectability by becoming involved in the Iraqi political process, calling Kurds, his fellow Iraqi citizens, apostates.
Mr. Al Sadr is an Islamic cleric who seems to rank professionally below those who are called “Imams”. He may not have much of a command of the English language, but it is my duty to inform him of a tautology in that it is very difficult to distinguish an apostate from an infidel in the language used by English speakers such as England’s Queen Elizabeth. This is a fairly minor offense and should not be counted against his record when he applies to enter Paradise where the virgins and/or the white grapes are said to be in residence.
As a non-involved participant in religious matters, it would seem to me that religions have made a mess of things. So just about every religious individual or group has grievances against other religious organizations. Some people would say the job has been badly botched.
Now, a fundamental question. Iraq was pre-emptorily invaded by what Bush calls a coalition. There was Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy and the United States, among others. All of these members of Bush’s grand coalition are considered by Muslim adherents to be Christian countries. It is widely known that Buddhists, Hindus and Shintos reside in those countries and who practice religion that is greatly at variance from that prescribed by, for example, the Reverend Doctor Billy Graham. Are these non-Christians exempt from the label of infidels even though they reside in a so-called Christian country?
If Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists throughout the world are subject to the slur of being called infidels and apostates simply because they reside in a country that is not considered to be an Islamic one, the Muslims are inviting these sects to register strong protests. In India, for example, this may very well result in retaliation against those who want to practice the Muslim faith in a predominately Hindu country. If the Islamists insist on “Our way or the highway,” they may find themselves in some sort of war.
Now if Islamists are persuaded to quit calling Hindus, Buddhists, et al, infidels and apostates, where does that leave Americans, for example, who are non-believers in every organized religious faith? My own personal view is that the Islamists will not accept any claim of non-belief. You are an American; therefore, you are a Christian. In some respects, it reminds me of the Muslim view of homosexuality. They claim that homosexuality does not ever occur in Islamic countries, thus, they have no gay or lesbian problem. They are pure. The flip side of that sort of thinking in blinders is that every American is a Christian and richly deserves to be called an infidel. Non-believers are thinking Americans who may resent being called an Islamic slur, and not a very imaginative one at that.
As for Israel, the slurs about faith go back to the year 570AD when the Prophet Mohammed was born. His followers now seem to assume that many people – Jews and Christians and perhaps others – are to be hated as infidels. Whatever happened to those many people who contend that the Koran is a book that preaches love and understanding for all mankind?
But the juxtaposition of the Jewish faith and Christianity brings up another poignant question. What would the Imams and Ayatollahs say about the infidel American Christian who marries a Jewish spouse? American sportscasters would call this a “twofer.” Here we have the hated Christian marrying a reviled spouse. This must set the Islamic faithful aflame with passion – all done in the name of love and understanding, of course.
If the Muslims find the Christian-Jew marital relationship repugnant in the extreme, what do you think Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani would say about an American Christian who marries a Muslim spouse? Sistani, who is recovering from cardiology work that was done in London, might wish to ask, “Are you trying to kill me?” This may well be a way to peace however. As the number of Muslim-Christian spousal relationships increase, the radical, right wing insurgents in the Islamic faith may kill themselves at such an outrage. It is my unshakeable belief that Sven and Ella Lernevall who live in Sweden, will use my advocacy of this innovative position, to promote me for a Nobel Prize in Peace.
Now let us turn to some military matters and the Grand Commander in Chief of American forces – George W. Bush. He says he is our wartime president. The fact that he started the pre-emptive war which makes him a wartime president is never mentioned.
A story appeared this week about the 2004 election. The dispatch claimed that Bush is now avidly courting the votes of black preachers. Walter Humphrey of Akron, Ohio, heard Bush and said, until recently, he had doubts about the fairness of presidential election results in 2000. Now he says, “I don’t see an election being stolen. I see that as the providence of God.”
Lt. General Boykin, who works as one of Rumsfeld’s top assistants, says in his talk to churches, that God put Bush in the White House. For his own part, Bush believes that his gut hunches come from God whom he said wanted him to be president.
If all these figures believe that Bush is acting in God’s name, how can anyone – Muslim or otherwise – call him and his soldiers infidels or apostates? From my viewpoint, Bush is Americas greatest infidel when it comes to uniting the people of this country.
Now let us examine the troops who make up the American military. Clearly, not every soldier who wears the American flag on his sleeve will sing “Onward Christian Soldiers” at Sunday services. There are soldiers who are devout Muslims who pray five times a day in a consecrated mosque. On holy days, he may ceremonially cut the throat of a sheep or a goat, all in the name of Allah. Given these circumstances, do you believe that the ordinary Imam in Mosul or Basra or in Riyadh would call such an American soldier an infidel? But he is serving a commander in chief who regularly proclaims his devotion to Jesus and the Christian Evangelic faith. This must be a close call for the Imams of the Arabic world who see the American soldier trying to serve two masters.
If you think my foregoing example of the Muslim soldier serving the Army of the so called Christian country is unimaginable, please consider the case of Captain Yee. The good captain was a Muslim who was a Chaplain in the United States Army. He was born in New Jersey, his parents were Americans, which most observers would say would make him an American. He was raised in the Muslim faith. From the beginning, he was an adherent to the cause of what we used to call Muhammadism.
Because the Army was holding something like 650 prisoners in a prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, Captain Yee was sent there because most or nearly all those prisoners claimed to be Muslim. Somewhere or somehow, the Army concluded that Captain Yee was illegally involved with the prisoners and said it was going to court martial him. He was held in solitary confinement in a Navy brig in South Carolina where Army officers informed him the court martial proceedings against him would include the death penalty. Pretty serious stuff. After more than two months of solitary confinement, the Army released him, but restricted him to the base. Simply put, the Army who had experts in the field and in Washington trying to make a case against Captain Yee, failed to find any significant evidence against him. In the end, Captain Yee was accused of having an extramarital affair with a female military person and the Army claimed he had pornographic pictures on his computer.
That is all the brass could come up with after months of work. No treason, no working to undermine the mission of the United States. If everyone who has been engaged in an extramarital affair runs the risk of the death penalty, it is clear that the coffin industry is the place to put your money. In the end, the Army surrendered and offered Captain Yee a discharge. He had to fight to make it clear that he would not leave the Army unless he had an honorable discharge. In the end, Captain Yee’s demands were met – but the grand U.S. Army, conqueror of Baghdad, refused to accompany the discharge with any sort of apology. Now my query to Grand Ayotallah Sistani and all other members of the Islamic faith, is whether Captain Yee should be called an infidel or an apostate because he served in a religious capacity with the U.S. Army? If he is called one of those slurs, it would seem to me a monumental case of piling on with no good reason.
This essay has gone on longer than intended. My thought here has to do with the mindlessness of calling another person an infidel or an apostate. You may differ, but in my vocabulary, those words spring from hate, not from love. In my own life, those words have been used against another sect or faith during the years that my parents forced me to attend their fundamental and primitive Protestant church services. The preachers, for example, were generally unschooled and would have no idea whatsoever if someone mentioned Mecca or any other basic Islamic practice. So they turned their wrath (read hatred) on other Christians. For example, according to the preachers who pastored these churches, no one could aspire to heaven unless he or she had submitted to full immersion during baptism. The translation of this interpretation is that Catholics and other sects who were anointed on their foreheads, would be condemned to hell and, it may be supposed, to being an infidel or an apostate during their lifetimes. My reaction to this state of affairs was one of total repulsion.
And so my long standing non-involvement, or non-belief if you will, in all the affairs of organized and unorganized religions suits me well. It is hoped, as has been expressed before in these essays, that your faith or lack of faith pleases you as well as mine suits me.
To be on the safe side though, my television listening habits sometimes take me to marvel at the offerings of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham (Billy’s son) and the Catholic programs on Eternal World Television Network. My occasional listening to offerings of these prominent religious figures together with my non-involvement or non-belief in sacred affairs might be called playing God across the board. That may be true, but for an ancient soldier essay writer in the eighth decade of his life who still aspires to angel wings, you clearly can’t be too safe.
E. E. CARR
October 6, 2004
~~~
I think there’s just a big misunderstanding. When a given sect or religion claims to be a religion of peace, that means that there’s generally peace among all those who hold that identical belief. Every religion would like to get to a state where everyone on the planet was an adherent of that particular religion, even for non-proselytizing ones like Judaism. Any Jewish person would jump at the chance to live in a version of Earth where every Christian and Muslim is instead also a Jew, and for good reason. There would be peace! This gets around the infidel problem, and if you are finding that you’re still upset with someone who nominally shares your religious beliefs, just keep going down the rabbit hole of increasingly specific sectionalism until you find a difference.