The problem is that the article assumes that Islam is automatically militant Islam. Although, that may have been true in the previous centuries, it was also true for much of Christendom. As Western society evolved, Christians became less willing to use force to spread doctrine.
But there is a difference. Such violence is not commanded by Christianity. Some Christians may act in such a way, but this is not mandated and by our Faith.
The Qu’ran, on the other hand has several passages which would appear to support at least some of what ISIS is doing.
Surat 47:4 "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command].
Surat 9:5 “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Now it could be argued that the Old testament contains some cruel things, but the difference is that the Bible is not viewed in its entirety as the actual verbatum word of God. The Qu’ran is viewed by Muslims as being the literal word of God transcribed by his prophet. Yes, Muslims who are good, decent people (and there are a great many of them) but a literal reading of the Qu’ran means that such passages are actual commands from God.
If Muslims viewed the Qu’ran as being divinely inspired, but written by humans in their own words , then yes, such passages could be interpreted as being est within certain historical contexts, be open to interpretation etc., but everything that is written in the Qu’ran is viewed by Muslims as being the actual word of God.
I’d be interested if any of our Muslim friends who post on here could explain a way around this conundrum?
