Peter Sara notes that Islam, unlike Christianity, was founded by a warrior.
A kiwi businessman was in North Korea some years ago, on business. He had only been in the country a few days when he was suddenly taken to the airport and deported.
This was an unexpected turn of events and, try as he might, he could not think what he had done to warrant this summary expulsion.
As he was being taken to the airport by the police, he finally managed to discover his offence.
As he cleaned his shoes that morning on a piece of newspaper on the floor (as you do), he had failed to notice that the photograph, upon which his unworthy soles had rested, was none other than the Beloved Leader.
After he left his hotel room that morning, the cleaner had discovered the screwed-up paper in the bin, doubtless with some nugget besmirching the visage of His Loveliness.
Our chap was promptly reported to the authorities. No apology or excuse was accepted or acceptable and out he went.
There is a grisly resonance in the Charlie Hebdo bloodshed. ''The Prophet has been avenged'' shouted the killers in the street. And, too, in the revolting spectacle of orange-clad victims kneeling in the desert at the feet of some thug holding a knife.
Some Muslims, prominent in the media, protest that murderous thuggery perpetrated by religious zealots is not done in the name of, or for, the furtherance of Islam, or for or on behalf of their prophet.
Such criminals (as they are called) are not true Muslims.
Islam is a religion of peace, they say. Some protest that every time some gory and cowardly murder is committed in the name of Islam, they (being moderate Muslims) are invited to condemn such acts so that the watching world doesn't get the wrong idea about their faith.
Calls for similar disclaimers for acts perpetrated by Buddhists or Hindus are hard to recall.
Latterly, Christians seem to be off the hook as well. There is no doubt that Muslims are getting some very bad press these days.
A fair question is whether the murderous among the multitude of Muslims across the globe are followers of their prophet, accepting of course that most Muslims are not violent.
How does one tell whether acts done in the name of a religious leader are illegitimate excursions from the pathway of true faith, or the faithful devotion of a disciple?
Exactly the same considerations apply to followers of Christ, in case it was thought that Muslims were getting an unfair beat-up.
We all know that what we do speaks louder than what we say.
The actions of a leader should line up with what they profess, if they are to attract a following. The adage is ''Follow the leader''.
A mark of the disciple is the degree to which the one being followed is imitated.
A true disciple, by definition, aspires to be like his/her master.
This is true of Christianity. The call is for followers to be like Christ, that is imitators.
It is also true of Muslims, who are called to follow their prophet.
So it is fair to examine the example of a religious leader in order to gauge to what degree the actions of their disciples reflect the imitation process.
Are what the disciples doing a reflection of what their leader taught and did?
Since the current focus is on killing in the name of religion, the question might better be whether this is an outcome of following the personal example of a leader, as opposed to what is professed to be their teachings.
The only recorded act of violence committed by Jesus was the expulsion of the rip-off artists from the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple.
But no violence was directed at or applied to any human being. Jesus never hurt anyone.
Muhammad, on the other hand, was a warrior. He oversaw or personally carried out more than 50 military campaigns or expeditions in which people were killed by him or on his behalf. Islam is the only religion to be founded by a military leader.
If Muhammad felt justified in committing acts of violence and killing, how can his followers be criticised for doing likewise?
More honest discussion is needed about these matters without fear of being labelled a racist or an Islamophobe.
Such accusations shut down robust discussion and are a dishonest smokescreen hiding the real issues at hand.
Is there justification for violent acts from the example and teaching of Islam's prophet? This is one of the most pressing questions of our day.
Furthermore, criticising an ideology is not racist or stirring up hatred for people.
There is a difference between people and ideologies.
As a Christian, there can never be any justification for the vilifying of individuals or hating anybody.
The command to love all people is non-negotiable, but that does not shield ideologies or religions from legitimate inquiry or criticism.
Accusations of Islamophobia, such as resorting to threats and gross acts of violence for blasphemy (so called), are nothing less than bullying.
Advocates of right and left-wing politics strongly disagree with each other and are free to do so in the media and in public.
But this does not spill over into violence, nor are people labelled racist or haters.
If criticising an ideology such as communism or capitalism is permissible, why not criticism of Islam?Is there justification for violent acts in emulating the example and teaching of Islam's prophet?
We can laugh at the expulsion of the Kiwi for cleaning his shoes on a newspaper, but offending the sensibilities of some Muslims can have terminal consequences. This must not be.
Peter Sara is an elder at Elim Church, Dunedin.
