An absurd report quoted in Mother Jones attempts to counter the Team B II Report entitled “Sharia: The Threat to America” by defending Islamist barbarity through claiming moral equivalency to Jewish and Christian scriptures. The comparison to Christian scripture by Matt Duss and Wajahat Ali, both of whom are apologists for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) whose leaders were convicted of funding Hamas terror, points the finger of blame directly at Jesus Christ Himself.
Why would Mother Jones quote them in an attempt to paint Jesus Christ as equivalent to Islamist barbarians? Is there no Christian on the Left willing to defend Jesus against this outrageous and false charge?
Jesus Christ is seen by 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, and many hundreds of millions of protestant Christians, as the Incarnate Son of God, the perfect, innocent Lamb who preached, above all, love of one’s neighbor and even love of one’s enemies. But Mother Jones wants you to see Jesus not as an innocent victim of selfish mankind, the slaughtered Lamb, but as one who defended the equivalent of Sharia killings.
The “Sharia threat” argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time.
The equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death (Deut. 21:18-21) or that Christians slay all non-Christians (Luke 19:27). In a more secular context it is similar to arguing that the use of printed money in America is unconstitutional—ignoring the interpretative process of the Supreme Court.
As a Catholic, I am no scholar of Jewish law and look at those Scriptures with Christian eyes, so I will let Jewish scholars respond to the criticism of Deuteronomy. However, I must protest this accusation against Jesus as He is being falsely accused. The charge is against Jesus’ use of a parable to describe God’s judgment of mankind.
For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.
There are two important points to be made here. First, everyone in Christendom, whether it is a backwoods snake-handler or Pope Benedict XVI, understands that a parable is an allegory. There are no Christians, no matter how uneducated or foolish, who take parables literally. The Qur’an, on the other hand, is always to be taken literally.
Secondly, it is clear from the context that the reference is to the Judgment, when God will judge all men. [emphasis mine]
Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.
Finally, even if it were true that Jesus (Who is God Himself to Christians) were “guilty” of literally calling for the “slaying” of “all non-Christians,” I have to ask, how could that possibly be a justification for failing to condemn terrorists who simply read the Qur’an and follow its direct commands?
Given that the authors are both supporters of Islamist terror through their continued defenses of HLF, they are devoid of credibility on these issues. Duss has referred to criticisms of the unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case as nothing more than a “talking point” and Ali has posted warm fuzzies on his blog for HLF co-founder Ghassan Elashi, who was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.