By Silas
PROLOG
One crucial difference between Muhammad
and Jesus is that Muhammad intended to establish Allah’s kingdom on earth,
Jesus did not. Jesus taught that His kingdom was not of this world, (John
18:36), and that His followers were not to use violence to force people to
obey. Muhammad taught that Allah instructed him to conquer the world, by
force if necessary, in order to establish obedience under Allah’s kingdom:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been
ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped
but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and
slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us
and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be
with Allah." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, #387.1
As a result of Allah’s command, Muhammad attacked and conquered many neighboring tribes and forced them to submit to Islam’s rule, thereby growing the Kingdom of Allah. Muhammad also noted this crucial difference and commented:
Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger
of Allah said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects:
I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have
been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful
to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been
sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me. Sahih
Muslim, Volume 4, #1062.2 (See also Sahih Bukhari Volume 4,
#220).
The kingdom of Allah is both spiritual and physical and Muhammad desired and enjoyed the plunder from his defeated enemies. Note that “terror” was one of his tools. (See David Wood’s article: “Allah: The Author of Islamophobia”)
Following Muhammad’s death the
successive Caliphs continued his policy in full. Within 100 years the
Islamic kingdom was one of history’s largest empires. Allah’s command to
use force to establish his kingdom on earth is an integral part of Islam’s physical
and spiritual approach towards the non-Muslim world. It has molded Islam
into being a religion of temporal power and domination. Islamic political
and martial rule over others is a fundamental Islamic goal and worldly power is
the key to that goal.
Today, in accordance with Muhammad’s
command, Muslims continue to commit acts of violence and terror to further
spread Islam’s domain. The goal, like Muhammad’s goal, is to terrorize,
kill, plunder, and weaken the enemy to further Islam’s rule. In many cases
they have succeeded. In countries like England, Muslim rape gangs can
rape thousands of non-Muslim girls while the authorities turn a blind eye.
(What a horrible embarrassment for the once-great England.) In
majority Muslim countries today, the conquered people, the non-Muslims, are
persecuted and discriminated against. The Islamic government often
terrorizes those not obedient to Islam’s demands. Cases in point,
Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. They are not performing acts of terror,
instead, the terrorist’s goals are enshrined in their country’s legal
code. As Islam grows stronger, non-Muslims, or nominal Muslims, feel the
pain. This affliction is seen and understood by non-Muslims and Muslims
worldwide.
Millions of Muslims worldwide know
there is something troubling, something disturbing about the teachings of
Islam. Islam has been shoved down their throats and they yearn for
something better. Other Muslims are beginning to see their faith’s
troubling aspects, (you can see this from Mustafa Aykol’s writings in the NY
Times). I’ve been in many discussions with Muslims, and once you can get
beyond the debating stage, get beyond the “that’s not Islam” stage, and get
more heart to heart, they will tell you about some of the aspects of Islam that
trouble them. I’ve been surprised at how candid some Muslims can be when
talking about Muhammad and the bad things he did. Muslims, like many
other people, are yearning for something better, something more real, more
personal, and more reliable.
In light of the current hunger by
Muslims, and in light of the horrible violence and persistent acts of terror
committed by dedicated Muslims, and in light of the overwhelming level of
destruction caused by ISIS, wouldn’t you say that understanding Islam, knowing
its theological doctrines and tenets, and reaching Muslims with the truth of
the Gospel is job #1 for Christians?
Can you think of a greater need, a greater void, where the love, light and truth of Jesus Christ is needed more?
INVESTIGATE, EXAMINE, EVALUATE, DECIDE
Our Lord taught us to examine, discern,
and evaluate:
“Beware of the false prophets, who come
to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know
them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15, 16
Examine everything carefully; hold fast
to that which is good; 1 Thessalonians 5:21
We are to perform a ‘quality-control’
check: keep what is good, reject what is bad.
This is what the Lord did when He
rejected, and condemned, the Pharisee’s methodology. Likewise this is what
the Apostles and Paul did when they encountered false doctrine. The early
church Fathers did this as well when they established key church doctrine: in
doing this they deliberately identified and rejected false doctrine.
These men did not blindly accept any religious statement they
encountered. They took their faith seriously, they were not lax or
casual, they did not act stupidly. Instead, they scrutinized various
doctrines and claims, they had heated discussions, they argued and debated, and
they sought the Lord’s wisdom in identifying true from false.
We are to do the same.
You do not need to do an in-depth
analysis to see that our Lord condemned some of the churches in Revelation for
not taking a stand and rejecting falsehood in their midst. Surely then,
we’re expected to identify and reject falsehood and evil. Let’s be fair,
but also rigorous. Let’s know when to keep an open mind, and when to
reject firmly and close the door.
In this vein, myself, and many other
Christians like me, have investigated, examined, and evaluated Muhammad and
Islam. We’ve studied the Quran, hadith, sira, and Islamic scholars’
work. We’re familiar with early Islamic history; the actions of the four
“Rightly Guided Caliphs.” We base our decisions on these writings,
teachings, and historical facts. We’ve seen the evidence, we’ve made a
decision: we stand, we speak, and we criticize Islam strongly. In
contrast to the Gospel, Islam is evil, ungodly, and anti-Christ. We state
that Muhammad was a false prophet and that his religion, real Islam, is an evil
poison in humanity’s veins. [If you examine Islamic doctrine and
Muhammad’s life, you’ll see that the sins that the Lord rebukes in Revelation 2
parallel the sins of Islam.] We base our arguments upon Islam’s tenets
and tomes, upon Muhammad’s life, his teachings and his actions, and upon the
subsequent actions of his closest friends, those that knew him and his commands
best. We base our effort on what our Lord commands His followers to
do. We are not ashamed, instead we are confident that the love and truth
of Christ is far, far, greater than the hatred and falsehood of Muhammad and
Islam.
I believe the Lord has given us a
twofold goal: to educate the church and our fellow citizens about the
darkness in Islam, and to reach Muslims with the Gospel. This is our
work, our labor of love. This is what the Lord compels us to do.
Islam is 180 degrees out of phase with
the Gospel. Muhammad denied that Jesus was the Son of God, Muhammad denied
Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, Muhammad denied His work of
atonement. With such a complete rejection of the Gospel, and their faith
in a false and evil prophet, how then can Muslims be saved?
The answer is they can’t if they are
left with only the darkness of Islam. Therefore we have worked to bring
them the Light of the Gospel.
In this effort, all of the polemicists
I know have had a good measure of success. Polemics, used at the right
time and place, as the Lord leads, are very effective. I do not believe
it is the only way to reach Muslims but it is one method the Lord does use.
CRITICIZING ISLAM, VS. “ISLAMOPHOBIA”
Having seen the darkness and falsehood
in Islam, many Christians criticize Islam strongly. I have been doing
this since the early 90s, long before 9/11. Our arguments are rock solid
and I’ll go so far as to say they are irrefutable. Unfortunately,
Christians who have studied, rejected, and criticized Islam are called
“Islamophobes,” sometimes even by fellow Christians. Those fellow
Christians are wrong for doing so.
There also exist worldly organizations,
such as International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, (ICRD), and the
Dialogue Institute. They have noble and lofty goals of holding dialogs
between members of different faiths and building bridges of friendship and
understanding. I don’t believe this aspect of their effort should be
criticized. However, their leadership goes well beyond those goals and
labels people who criticize Islam, including Christians, as “Islamophobes.”
Some Christian organizations, such as
Fuller Theological Seminary, (Fuller), led by Mark Labberton, have joined with
them in their ignoble, and un-Christian, effort.
In Oct. 2015, ICRD held a conference,
in part to “develop thoughtful responses to Islamophobia.” In 2016,
Fuller published the conference’s set of articles as one of their “Fuller
Dialogs.” Additionally they added a collection of “global responses to
the topic from evangelicals and Muslims.” In total Fuller published about
20 articles. Many were focused on Islamophobia, other focused upon other
related Muslim-Christian topics, (such as the persecution of Christians in
Muslim countries), or upon topics related solely to the Muslim world.
You can find the collection of articles
here: Fuller Studio: Evangelicals and
Islamophobia
My goals in this article are to examine and challenge the concept of “Islamophobia” as it is widely used, to show why it should be unacceptable for Christians to use the “Islamophobe” slur, and to question Fuller’s support in the furthering of the “Islamophobe” slur agenda against those who criticize Islam strongly.
Fuller’s Claim
Christian colleges exist, ostensibly,
in part to prepare Christians for service in bringing that love, light and
truth. The Islamic world has gained ever-increasing attention starting in
the 1980s and today many Christian colleges offer degrees, or special focuses,
on ministry to Muslims. One such college is Fuller. Their website
asserts that they endeavor to prepare Christians for such ministry:
Changes in the world today require new
kinds of intercultural connection. At Fuller, we see a need for Christians with
both solid biblical grounding and a sophisticated knowledge of Islam,
who are committed to engaging with Muslims in ways that contribute to the
spiritual and social transformation of the most challenging realities of our
day. If you feel called in this way, we invite you to join us at Fuller. Our
faculty, experienced in research and study of the Islamic faith, will help
you understand and think critically about Islam and mission. http://fuller.edu/islamic-studies/
Take note, Fuller wants to prepare its students to possess a “sophisticated knowledge of Islam” and to “think critically about Islam and mission.” I think it reasonable to hold Fuller to that standard?
Fuller’s Articles
Fuller approved of these articles and
published them on their website. To keep things simple I refer to them as
“Fuller’s articles.” Again please note, not all of them were written by
Fuller personnel, and not all of the writers were Christian. I say this
because Fuller having published a Muslim’s, or atheist’s opinion, does not mean
that Fuller endorses every little theological detail in those articles.
Instead, Fuller is endorsing the composite argument, including the tone and
tenor, against Islamophobia. Therefore, some distinction must be
made. It is here my contention lies and it is primarily focused upon the
Christian writers and their themes.
I’ve gone through the articles and I
have four significant criticisms:
1) The term “Islamophobia” is an
inaccurate word, poorly defined, and is used to stop investigation and
discussion. It’s used actually as a “loaded word” meant to trigger a judgmental
reaction. It’s a rhetorical device meant to hinder critical thinking.
2) The articles use “Islamophobe” as a
pejorative, i.e. they are simply name-calling. Instead of using coarse or
vulgar four-letter words, they call critics of Islam “Islamophobes.”
Similar to this approach people call other people they disagree with
“heretics!” “anti-Christs!” “Hitler!” “fascists!”
3) The arguments of the alleged
“Islamophobes” are not examined. Fuller put money, work, and time into
their supportive effort and packaged it as a “Dialog.” Don’t
dialogs offer differing points of view? Isn’t it then a fair and reasonable
expectation to hear, examine, and understand, the differing or even opposing
viewpoints? Instead only one side’s view is offered.
4) The articles approach the subject of
Islam in a frivolous fashion. While they take the subject of
“Islamophobia” seriously, they do not take Islam seriously. Yet Islam,
real Islam, is the root of what this argument is about. None of the
articles engage that topic to any degree.
1) The term “Islamophobia” is an inaccurate word, and poorly defined.
The term “islamophobia” is mentioned
about 120 times throughout the collection of articles. However it is a
poorly coined word and within the articles it is not defined clearly.
Let’s start with a technical
definition. A phobia is defined as:
pho·bi·a
a persistent, irrational fear of a
specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to
avoid it.
a combining form meaning “fear,”
occurring in loanwords from Greek ( hydrophobia); on this model, used in the
names of mental disorders that have the general sense “dread of, aversion
toward” that specified by the initial element: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/phobia
A phobia is a type of
anxiety disorder, defined by a persistent fear of an object or situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Note that this term is used relative to mental disorders.
Therefore, an accurate description of
the term “Islamophobia” would be “an irrational fear of Islam.” Yet, when
you examine how the writers, and others, use the term, you would see that they
are not talking about people who have a mental disorder, or who are irrational,
instead, they are using it to describe those who criticize Islam strongly.
Modern usage of “phobia” has allowed
its meaning to morph into various shades of a dislike or prejudice against
Muslims. To obtain their goal, the articles follow this indistinct and
spacious definition.
Here are some examples from their
writings:
“Islamophobia,” a term which, when it
was first introduced as a concept in 1991, was defined as an “unfounded
hostility toward Muslims.” Douglas Johnston, p2
Islamophobia is a contrived fear or
prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power
structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the
maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political,
social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy
violence as a tool to achieve “civilizational rehab” of the target communities
(Muslim or otherwise). Howard Cohen, p17
(NOTE: Douglas Johnston notes that the term Islamophobia was first introduced in 1991. It was actually introduced much earlier than that.)
Throughout the series of articles, when
actual people are identified as “Islamophobes” they are not practicing
“unfounded hostility towards Muslims.” Instead these people are strongly
criticizing Islam. I believe that Islam is a wicked religion but I know,
and love, many good Muslim people. I help them, and they help me. I
mean that sincerely. I know far too many good Muslims to characterize
them in a malevolent fashion. They are excellent friends, people, and
citizens. They should be valued as citizens and treated with respect.
However, when appropriate, I challenge them to take a look at the dark side of
Islam.
Take a look at one of Cohen’s
definitions of “Islamophobia,” “a strong fear or dislike.” With such a
loose, broad, and imprecise definition, the term xxxphobia could be used
against anyone who has a strong dislike for anything. Fans of the New
York Giants might be called “Eaglephobes,” people who dislike gluten might be
called "Glutenphobes," and so on. To label and slur such
people, because of a “strong dislike,” is dishonest, stupid, and lazy.
Take a look at another aspect of
Cohen’s definition. “Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice
fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It
is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat …”
This is professional doublespeak.
His work could be described in a less kind way. If there are “real”
Muslim threats then shouldn’t people feel threatened? How then could this
fear be contrived? Otherwise they would be “fools” as defined by the
Bible. Also, the critics of Islam, the “Islamophobes,” as Cohen and the
other writers would define, are also found in India, Malaysia, Japan, Thailand,
China, and include many ex-Muslim critics of Islam, etc. Hardly a
Eurocentric and Orientalist bunch! I would say that many of these people
have encountered the “real Muslim threat” and have taken a stand against
it. Shouldn’t they? Wouldn’t you?
[Additionally, if you want to read a
rambling, incoherent, bubbling brook of bunk, take a look at Christopher
Allen’s definition found on page 190 of his article here: Allen Allen rambles
on and on to define his version of “Islamophobia.” His argument is weak
because he needs to babble on and on to define it. This is not
scholarship, this is someone thrashing about in the sea, trying to find a life
raft.]
There are honest, sincere, and intelligent people who have addressed the misuse of the word “Islamophobia.” The Atlantic magazine published an article by Tanya Basu, found here: Sam Harris She quotes the famous atheist, Sam Harris, on Islamophobia:
When I recently asked Sam Harris what
he thought of the word 'Islamophobia,' he directed me to a tweet that noted the
following: “Islamophobia. A word created by fascists, & used by cowards, to
manipulate morons.”
“I don’t think [the tweet] overstates
the case by much,” said Harris, the atheist author whose sweeping critique of
Islam (and the "meme of Islamophobia") on Real Time With Bill Maher
has sparked a broader debate about Islamophobia—both the phenomenon and the
term itself—in the age of ISIS and Islamist politics.
“Islam is not a race, ethnicity, or
nationality: It’s a set of ideas," Harris told me. "Criticism of
these ideas should never be confused with an animus toward people. And yet it
is. I’m convinced that this is often done consciously, strategically, and quite
cynically as a means of shutting down conversation [on] important topics.”
…
“Religions differ, and their specific
differences matter,” Harris explained. “And the truth is that Islam has
doctrines regarding jihad, martyrdom, apostasy, etc., that pose a special
problem to the civilized world at this moment in history.”
Isn’t Harris correct? He spoke those words in 2014. Events in the Mideast during the last three years have reinforced the truth of his statement. Is there any more ugly and evil force at work today in the world besides real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam? Shouldn’t Muhammad’s Islam, real Islam, the Islam of ISIS, be criticized?
Harris’s clear and accurate statement
makes the writers’ chirping on about Islamophobia sound foolish. Why
should an atheist make a better, a more accurate statement, on a religious fact
than the “professors” on our side?
Another person to comment on the term “Islamophobia” is the ex-Muslim Ali Rizvi. During an interview he commented on the word “Islamophobia.”
“Islamophobia” is a misnomer.
“Islamophobia” does not make the distinction between legitimate criticism of
Islam and anti-Muslim hate or anti-Muslim bigotry. That’s a very important
distinction. Islam is an idea. It’s a set of ideas in a book. Muslims are
people. It’s an identity. It’s a group of human beings.
Criticizing ideas moves societies
forward. Challenging ideas moves societies forward. Demonizing people rips
societies apart. And human beings have rights. Ideas don’t.
The word “Islamophobia” does not make
this distinction. When we say “anti-Semitism,” we’re not saying
“Judaismophobia.” We’re saying “anti-Semitism,” because bigotry is against
people. You can’t be bigoted against ideas.
When it doesn’t make that distinction,
it’s a very sinister term. Because it actually takes the pain of genuine
victims of anti-Muslim bigotry and exploits that for the political purpose of
stifling criticism of Islam.
I know I’ve tried to correct that in my
own writing, using “anti-Muslim bigotry” when it’s appropriate. Rizvi
Rizvi is correct. “Anti-Muslim bigotry” is the term Christians should be using. I would have no problem if that were applied, not to Islam’s critics, but to actual anti-Muslim bigots and haters.
Here’s a significant wrinkle on the
articles’ use of “Islamophobia.” Some reference a “1991 Runnymede Trust
Report” and credits that article with coining the term “Islamophobia.”
That report has been used by others to advance their arguments against the
“Islamophobes.” The twist is that a leader behind the Runnymede Report, Trevor
Phillips, has made some very strong, and critical, statements about Islam
recently:
Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede
report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips
himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now
become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.
…
“It’s not as though we couldn’t have
seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he
admits. … But we got almost everything else wrong.”
…
“For a long time, I too thought that
Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually
abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage
lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I
should have known better.”
And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that
the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim
populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes:
“The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the
recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely
reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim
communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in
the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.
…
Phillips comments: “Some of my
journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it.
They won’t.” Phillips
Phillips’s eyes have been opened. The reality of the poison of Islam dawns upon his mind’s panorama. He admits that he got “almost everything else wrong.” Today, by the Conference’s standards, Phillips would be labeled “Islamophobe.”
The point here, based on the above
articles, is that the term “Islamophobia” was not, or cannot, be defined
accurately, precisely, or clearly. The harder they try the more
incoherent their work becomes. Their definitions are subjective, overly
broad, and inaccurate. Their effort is towards shutting down real dialog,
real conversation, about Islam.
2) The articles use “Islamophobe” as a pejorative, i.e. they are simply name-calling. Instead of using coarse or vulgar four-letter words, they call critics of Islam, “Islamophobes.”
This point ties in with the first
point. There’s another problem with using the term Islamophobe to
describe Islam’s critics. An analysis of the term, “Islamophobia,” was
performed by Robin Richardson. Richardson She states:
The disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are
significant.
…
2.To accuse someone of being insane or irrational is to be abusive and, not surprisingly, to make them defensive and defiant. Reflective dialogue with them is then all but impossible.
…
2.To accuse someone of being insane or irrational is to be abusive and, not surprisingly, to make them defensive and defiant. Reflective dialogue with them is then all but impossible.
3. To label someone with whom you
disagree as irrational or insane is to absolve yourself of the responsibility
of trying to understand, both intellectually and with empathy, why they think
and act as they do, and of seeking through engagement and argument to modify
their perceptions and understandings.
Despite its disadvantages, the term
Islamophobia looks as if it is here to stay – it cannot now be discarded from
the lexicon.
The tone of Richardson’s article is actually very sympathetic towards Muslims and is critical of the “Islamophobes.” But she has enough honesty and integrity to admit that that word is problematic. She argues implicitly that one should be charitable towards those who disagree with you. If you want honest dialog about a sincere disagreement, you don’t call your opponents names.
One of the authors is brother Rick Love. He champions himself as a “peacemaker.” I believe that if you look at the extent of his ministry that is an accurate and honorable term. He has his own ministries and websites and he has served the body of Christ in many ways for much of his life. It is noteworthy that on his website, one of his organization’s team member, Martin Brooks, also recognizes the stupidity of using the term “Islamophobe” against critics of Islam. In his article here, Rick Love
Brooks states:
(Honestly, I think we even need a new
term to refer to this phenomenon. “Islamophobia” is pejorative and alienating
to the very people who need to be involved in the discussion).
The definition of pejorative is:
A pejorative (also called a derogatory
term, a slur, a term of abuse, or a term of disparagement) is a word or
grammatical form expressing a negative connotation or a low opinion of someone
or something, showing a lack of respect for someone or something. It is also
used as criticism, hostility, disregard or disrespect. … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative
In light of Brooks’s honest assessment it needs to be asked, “Why is Fuller slurring fellow Christians?” And Rick Love should explain how he feels that slurring fellow Christians or others is peace building. Rick has embraced and supported Muslim terrorists, couldn’t he grant a measure of that grace to fellow Christians and those who criticize Islam?
Look, I have criticized a few fellow Christians strongly. Miroslav Volf and “Harley Talman” come to mind. Volf equates Islam’s God with Christianity’s God, and Talman honors Muhammad as some type of legitimate prophet. Both points contradict essential Biblical teaching and are highly objectionable. However, I backed my argument up with strong Biblical fact and data. I also examined their arguments in detail. I bought and read Volf’s books and read Talman’s article many times over. I went to the trouble to understand their point of view, and why they believed and taught what they did. However, I disagreed with their conclusions and posted a Biblically-based rejection and refutation. Biblical teaching condemns their type of syncretism.
We all have disagreements about many
things, but we don’t resort to name calling. We can argue about pre-trib,
post-trib, or no-trib rapture. We can engage in arguments about the TULIP
doctrine, Calvinism vs Arminianism, water baptism, speaking in tongues,
etc. But we are usually debating with fellow Christians and we should be
gracious and charitable towards our fellow brothers and sisters. You
don’t slur them because they take a different view on a secondary
point. As Luther said, “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials
Liberty, In All Things Charity.” In both the Old and New Testaments, the
worship of false gods and the acceptance of false prophets is condemned
strongly. Clearly it is an essential.
One Christian brother who has taken a very balanced look at the “Islamophobia” phenomena is Roy Oksnevad. You can find his article here Islamophobia
In his article here he lists five key
aspects that are usually missing from Islamophobia discussions. You’ll
note that these five key aspects are also missing from the articles in the
Fuller Dialog publication:
1. Islam is peace: “…Islamic groups,
are highly selective in their source documentation, quoting only peace verses
from the Qur’an.”
2. Original source documentation:
“When non-Muslims point out from the Qur’an, Hadiths (traditions), Sira of
Muhammad (earliest official biography of Muhammad) that Islam has a sordid
history of violence, and that these sources provide the example and theological
backing for what some Muslims are following, it is met with a cry of
Islamophobia or Orientalism[8] (in a negative sense). This is not an
attack on Islam nor is it Islamophobic. It is an honest look at history
which all people need to understand and acknowledge.”
3. Denial of Muslim involvement (in
violence and terror).
4. Using Islamophobia as a bullying
tactic: Though CAIR has warned against using bullying tactics of invoking
Islamophobia to silence criticism of Islam, it seems that on a popular level
this is exactly what is happening.
5. Political Correctness:
Governments that play the political correctness card by referring to the
perpetrators of violence from a Muslim background as “terrorists” are denying
their serious and conservative interpretation of Islam.
Brother Oksnevad is correct. The articles ignore Islam’s doctrinal support for violence and oppression, and attempts to bully into silence those who do not ignore it.
Recently, a prominent Canadian civil rights lawyer spoke before the Canadian Parliament on the topic of Islam and Islamophobia:
1) Some fears of Islam justified, human
rights lawyer tells M103 committee
A celebrated Canadian human rights
lawyer urged MPs to be careful in their use of the term Islamophobia, saying
“fear of some elements of Islam is mere prudence.”
David Matas, an Order of Canada
recipient who began his career as a clerk for the Chief Justice of Canada in
the 1960s, delivered testimony Wednesday before the M-103 committee hearings in
his capacity as senior counsel to B’nai Brith Canada.
“Not every fear of Islam is
Islamophobia,” Matas said to the House of Commons Heritage Committee, noting
that anyone who is not afraid of the various radical Islamic terrorist outfits
in the world is “foolhardy”.
“Islamophobia does not appear in a
vacuum,” Matas told MPs. “It grows out of a fear of incitement and acts of
hatred and terrorism coming from elements of the Islamic community.”
The Winnipeg-based lawyer, who ran for
office years ago as a Liberal, recommended the committee take a “dual focus”
approach on both those victimized by Islamophobia and those within the Islamic
community inciting hatred and terrorism.
Fogel pointed to a Toronto District
School Board booklet’s definition of Islamophobia that included mere dislike of
political Islam as worthy of censure. “This incident exposes significant
problems with relying on ad hoc, inadequate definitions of Islamophobia,” said
Fogel.
On Monday, Muslim author and Sun
columnist Farzana Hassan told the committee her concerns about how the term is
used in other countries to suppress criticism from within the
faith. Human Rights
Matas’s statements are distinct and accurate. People who wish to think clearly and rationally need to know and examine the facts of a case. People who fling the “Islamophobe” slur toward those who criticize Islam, without examining their argument, are just trying to shut people up.
An Example
Let’s take a look at an example from
one of the articles. David Johnston’s, “American Evangelical
Islamophobia: A History of Continuity with a Hope for Change,” implicitly
labels Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and Robert Spencer as “Islamophobes.”
On the other side, evangelical leaders
like Pat Robertson opined that these people are worse than the Nazis: “Adolf
Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.”
Evangelist Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, quipped that Islam is a “very
evil and wicked religion.” Conservative Catholic writer Robert Spencer,
who had already written about the “Islamic threat” in the 1990s, called himself
vindicated after 2001, asserting that “violence and terror are fundamentals of
Islam.” Though drawing from a vast reservoir of virulent anti-Muslim literature
and sentiment, these people were no doubt also influenced by the political
matrix of this period.
All three of these men are Christians and brothers in the faith. I’m sure I would disagree with all three on one religious topic or another. Yet I am not going to slur them. The fact that Johnston does not examine their comments, does not examine the “why” behind their statements, does not examine the aspects of their argument, tells me that he is prejudiced and close-minded.
Examine Franklin Graham and his
work. Let’s evaluate his deeds. Graham leads Samaritan’s Purse,
which is primarily a Christian aid organization. His organization has
delivered millions of dollars of aid and tons of food to Muslim
countries. Research it yourself or just check wiki! Do his deeds
paint him as an “Islamophobe” or rather as someone who loves his fellow man,
and feeds him, even if he disagrees strongly with that person’s faith? How
then can Johnston call Graham an “Islamophobe,” a “person who hates and fears
Muslims” when Graham is responsible for saving and helping thousands of Muslims
lives? It doesn’t make sense does it? Further, wouldn’t it be fair
to say that Graham has helped 100 times the number of Muslims Johnston has
helped? Why then does Johnston slur him?
Likewise Pat Robertson:
Johnston criticizes Robertson for
comparing Muslims to Nazis. But, for the record, I personally knew
high-ranking Egyptian Army officers who have told me that they would like to
drive the Israelis into the ocean. This was long after “peace” had been
established between the two countries. I’d say that Robertson’s statement
is fairly accurate. Also, it would not take much effort to peruse some
fundamentalist Islamic websites to find strong hatred of Jews. Better
still, you can find multiple terrorist attack events both in America and
worldwide, by Muslims attacking Jewish synagogues, meeting places, or shopping
areas. Only a bigoted and myopic hater would fail to see and acknowledge
that there is a significant percent of Muslims who want to kill Jews.
Here’s a recent related article:
Further, Robertson’s “Operation Blessing” has provided aid to hundreds of thousands of people, including Muslims. (Take a look at their website to see all the physical needs they meet.) How then can Johnston accurately castigate Robertson simply because Robertson has criticized Islam, and some Muslims, strongly?
Robert Spencer:
I checked out what Wikipedia had to say
about him:
Spencer does not believe that
traditional Islam is "inherently terroristic" but says he can prove
that "traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements",
and that "its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and the
subjugation of unbelievers".[16] However, he rejects the notion that all
Muslims are necessarily violent people.[16] He has said that among moderate
Muslims, "there are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and
practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as
equals."[17]
Clearly Spencer does not hate all Muslims. Certainly Spencer is 100% correct that “traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements. Even Muslim writers admit that! It is a fact that Spencer speaks out strongly against “radical Islam” as many others do, including Muslims! So how then can Johnston call him an “Islamophobe?”
If anything, these fellow Christians
are exhibiting love towards their fellow man by speaking out, voicing a
warning, and criticizing the evils in Islam. Yet Johnson wants them to
shut up.
Johnston’s work was sloppy and bigoted.
He paints with a very broad brush. He does not let facts and
details hinder his stroke.
3) The Islamophobes’ arguments are not examined.
Islamophobia, was the prima-facia
reason for the conference and subsequent publication of the articles by Fuller.
But when you survey the complete set of writings you find one gigantic
hole: why aren’t the Islamophobes’ arguments examined? What kind of
laughable “Dialog” is this when the merits of the opposing side’s arguments are
not even briefly addressed? How the hell is this supposed to enable a
Christian to obtain a “sophisticated knowledge of Islam”?
It doesn’t. It isn’t meant to.
If you were serious about understanding
any controversial topic you would ask “why is one side the way it is?”
You want to understand various viewpoints. Yet nowhere in this entire
spectrum of articles is that question asked.
This “Dialog” was not a dialog; it was
a gaggle of croaking crows. Word of advice to you younger Christians,
don’t try having a dialog like this with your wife or good friends. Even
Homer Simpson knows better.
Why did Fuller fail to address, much
less even consider the “Islamophobes’” point of view? This was not a
“Fuller” dialog, it was an “Emptier” dialog.
4) The articles approach the subject of Islam in a frivolous fashion.
Muslim terrorists admire and emulate
real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, the Islam that he taught, practiced, and
lived. Conversely, Islam’s critics find fault and offense in Islam, real
Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, the Islam that he taught, practiced, and lived.
Muhammad’s Islam is the actual root of what we are talking about. Yet
none of the articles examine Islamic teaching. Here and there a glib
Quran or hadith reference is tossed out but nothing of substance is
investigated.
This omission is inexcusable. How
do some 20 articles get published yet nothing of note related to Islamic
teaching is examined? Because Fuller does not take the subject of Islam
seriously.
On the other side, there are many Muslim
leaders and writers who acknowledge the truth about Islamic teaching and state
that there is a vein of violent teaching in Islam. Here are two examples
of Muslims admitting that violence is integral in their faith.
1. Yahya Cholil Staquf is a prominent
Islamic religious leader in Indonesia. He leads Indonesia’s largest
religious organization, Nahdlatul Ulama. It has some 50 million
members. He was interviewed and key comments are found here: Ulama Islam Terrorism
(Note to the reader, if there is any
one article that you should read, it is this one. What Staquf states is
exactly what many of so-called “Islamophobes” state).
Some questions, (bold and underlined),
and answers are:
Many Western politicians and
intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is
your view?
Western politicians should stop
pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is
a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic
assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this
matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
Radical Islamic movements are nothing
new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia.
The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to
“Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic
scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?
What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?
The relationship between Muslims and
non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’
relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the
classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is
assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.
Perhaps there were reasons for this
during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established,
but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that
Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living
harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious
societies of the 21st century.
So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of
establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic
tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a
unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence
... Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic
laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with
Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal
system that exists in secular nation-states.
Is it so elsewhere too?
Too many Muslims view civilization, and
the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must
combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.
There’s a growing dissatisfaction in
the West with respect to Muslim minorities, a growing fear of Islam. In this
sense, some Western friends of mine are “Islamophobic.” They’re afraid of
Islam. To be honest, I understand their fear … The West cannot force Muslims to
adopt a moderate interpretation of Islam. But Western politicians should stop
telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional
Islam. That is simply wrong.
2. The second source is Ibn Khaldun. He was a 14th century Islamic scholar, historian, and he is regarded as one of the world’s greatest philosophers. Commenting on the integral relationship between violence and Islam he states:
"... Now in the Muslim religion,
which is all-inclusive in its appeal and seeks to convert all, by persuasion or
by force, the Jihad against infidels is obligatory. Hence, in Islam, Caliphate
and Kingship are conjoined, in order to unite all effort towards a common end.
The appeal of religions other than Islam, on the contrary, is not
all-inclusive, nor is Holy War permissible for their adherents except in
self-defense. Hence their religious leaders do not concern themselves with
political affairs, but leave the temporal power in the hands of men who have
seized it by chance or for some reason with which religion has nothing to do.
Sovereignty exists among such peoples owing to social solidarity, as we said
before; their religion as such, however, does not impose any sovereignty on
them seeing that it does not demand of them dominion over other peoples, as is
the case with Islam, but merely the establishing of their faith among
themselves ..." Ibn Khaldun
Both of these Muslim scholars, one current, one ancient but highly respected, state that there is a connection between Islam and violence. They both agree that violence is integral to Islam.
All over the world, non-Muslims are
seeing real Islam at work. They are engaging the teachings of Muhammad,
and they are reaching the same conclusions as I, and millions of others.
Within real Islam there are some good and some bad doctrines. These bad doctrines
are rotten, evil, an inhumane. Shouldn’t all aspects of Islam be examined
when studying Islam today?
( NOTE: Muhammad demanded political and
marital rule over others. This demand for domination and power is similar
to the demands of Satan upon Jesus, (Matt 4:8,9), and of the false prophet (Rev
13:15-17, 17:12-14)).
DEFICIENT, DEFECTIVE, CHRISTIANS
When the leadership of any religious
education institution fails to adhere to its proclaimed core principles, its
efforts are weak and it produces a crop of poorly trained workers and
leaders. The sheep are fed poorly. Having reviewed Fuller’s Islamic
efforts I can only conclude that they have weak standards and no rigor.
Throughout the articles no stand for Christ is observed. No stand for the
truth of Christ’s teachings and against Muhammad’s lies is made.
Actually, I am not sure if the Christians involved made any general comments to
that effect, much less take an actual stand.
I’ve tried to contact a handful of
people, including Fuller professors and adjuncts, to discuss their
articles. None of the actual Fuller professors responded, but two
non-professors, did. One discussion was short but satisfying to me, the
other was not so good.
If the Islamic-studies leadership is
unwilling or unable to take a stand, then I’d say they are weak, deficient, and
defective. If no voice is given to the opposing side of an argument, no
consideration of the destructive tenets of Islam is made, and no contrast
between Christ’s and Muhammad’s teachings is noted, then this is just carpet
Christianity; only fit to be walked on. It is the opposite of what Christ
expects from His churches.
NEXT STEPS FOR THE CHURCH
At the beginning of this article I
stated that there exists a deep need for the Church to engage Islam. Millions
of Muslims have converted to Christianity and become followers of Jesus.
They are hungry for truth and hungrier for something deep to satisfy the needs
of their souls. Their need is becoming more acute throughout the Islamic
world. The need is now and it is very real.
A strong church would be in the lead in
engaging Islam. There are many small-scale Christian organizations that
are doing so. They are finding unique and creative ways to present the
Gospel to Muslims, they are training their workers to know both the pros and
cons of Islam, and, they are not compromising the Gospel’s truth and
application.
Jesus is the bread of life. He
alone can give us the living water to satisfy our souls.
I will say this: if the church is
not strong enough to criticize Islam as it does the “Islamophobes” then the
tide will never be turned fully. But our goal is to not just criticize
Islam and prove it is an evil faith. That’s easy once the Islamic source
materials are used. Our goal is to present the Gospel to Muslims as the
better alternative, the truth, one that will satisfy their hunger and bring
them into knowing God’s love and loving Him. Christ gave us two
commands: love God, love our neighbor. How can a man claim to love
God and his neighbor when he refuses to distinguish, much less speak out,
between true and false? How can a man claim to love his neighbor when he
refuses to point out that his beliefs are leading him to hell?
The Islam that we are dealing with is
both physical and spiritual and the stakes are ultimately high. Secular
writers realize this, atheists can see this. Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Time and again in the past few years I
have been asked by Americans who have heard my warnings about the increasingly
dangerous impacts of Islam on Western societies: What can be done? Is
there anything we can do? It is now time to address the all-important
question of remedies. p201
…
Here is something I learned the hard
way, but which a lot of well-meaning people in the West have a hard time
accepting: All human begins are equal, but all cultures and religions are
not. A culture that celebrates femininity and considers women to be the
masters of their own lives is better than a culture that mutilates girl’s
genitals and confines them behind wall and veils or flogs or stones them for
falling in love. A culture that protects women’s rights by law is better
than a culture in which a man can lawfully have four wives at once and women
are denied alimony and half their inheritance. … The culture of the Western
Enlightenment is better.
…
Instead of affirming the value of
tribal lifestyles, people in the West – activists, thinkers, government
officials – should be working to dismantle them. P212
Nomad
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Free Press, New York, NY, 2010
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Free Press, New York, NY, 2010
We are dealing with Islam and
comparisons and contrasts are integral to the discussion. If the
Christian workers are ignorant and poorly prepared for this discussion, they
usually fail. I’ve witnessed enough events were sincere and good-intentioned
Christians end up humiliated in discussion or debate because they did not know
Islam. Debates are not always necessary and they don’t always happen, but
when you are unable to stand and respond, you lose the debate, you lose
credibility.
Islam and Christianity are very
different. Brethren, now is the time to stand and speak, it is not the
time to bow.
CONCLUSION
I am only commenting on Fuller’s
Islamic-related programs. Fuller claims to be an Evangelical Christian
college and it offers degrees in many disciplines. For the sake of this
argument let me say that I’m sure their other programs are fantastic. I
believe that it has provided great education in those non-Islamic related
programs. No criticism of those programs is intended. I also know
some Fuller grads who have worked very hard in this field and have had a good
measure of success. I am more focused upon what is happening in the more
recent years, currently and in the near future.
With respect to its Islamic program,
Fuller’s proclaimed standard is for its students to possess a “sophisticated
knowledge of Islam” and to “think critically about Islam and mission.”
Contrary to their words, their deeds proclaim the exact opposite.
The goal of the Islamophobia conference, and of Fuller’s articles, was to
perpetuate ignorance and not think critically about Islam: 1) they chose
to use a bogus, politically correct and emotionally charged word to silence
investigation, 2) they used that word as a slur against fellow Christians, 3)
they did not evaluate any contrary arguments, and 4) they did not even evaluate
Islamic source material, pro or con.
The world, or dead cultural
“Christians,” are not expected to have morals or scruples because they have no
real faith. But God requires His people to be people of integrity and
honesty. We should strive to be accurate, fair, and intelligent. I
suspect that some of their Christian writers knew how poor this theme was so
they shied away from writing in depth.
The prince of the power of the air is
at work in the world today. We know that he intends to influence, delude,
and destroy. He makes war upon the church. Christians are supposed
to stand for truth and when this god of political correctness blows upon the
church to bend to his immoral will, we are to take a stand.
Unfortunately, many denominations, such as the Episcopalians, have
collapsed under his breath. They have become immoral and are dying.
But isn’t this death, this spiritual death, what Christ promised to the
corrupted churches in Revelation?
Brethren,
True Christians are called to love one another. We are called to be people of integrity. We should be leading the world in terms of the theological disciplines.
Brethren,
Some of you are called to ministry among Muslims. I challenge you to think twice before spending your money at Fuller. Your money is a resource given to you by God. You are responsible for it. Use it wisely to further God’s plan for your life.
Some of you are called to ministry among Muslims. I challenge you to think twice before spending your money at Fuller. Your money is a resource given to you by God. You are responsible for it. Use it wisely to further God’s plan for your life.
If you want to serve on the mission
field then get a medical, civil engineering, or ESL degree. You don’t
need a theology degree if all you are going to do is pass out milk and cookies
in Lebanon.
If all you want is a Th.M or M.Div to
put on your resume as a credential then there are cheaper options. If you
want to get an accurate understanding of Islam then I recommend you find a
college that is not afraid to challenge you to think, one that has some proven
leadership. I’m sure there are professors there who could challenge you
more in one semester of undergraduate or graduate study. Off the top of
my head I think that Wheaton, Oklahoma Wesleyan, Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, and Houghton are better options. I am sure there
are others.
I am an amateur.
I have criticized and challenged
Fuller’s Islamic leadership on their approach towards Islam and their use of
the term “Islamophobia.” My position is this:
1) Islam is comprised of a set of
teachings, commands, and statements, i.e. they are all ideas formed into a
religion. As such it is fair, valid, and even required, for it to be
evaluated and critiqued.
2) Islam’s teachings, such as the
rejection of Christ’s divinity, rejection of Christ’s Sonship, and rejection of
His plan for salvation, are false and lead people to hell. This is the
ultimate factor. Billons have been misled by Muhammad.
3) Islam is a wicked religion.
Its degradation of non-Muslims and women, its justification for slavery, its
enshrined use of violence, go against God’s commands and corrupt and destroy
humanity.
4) Islam should be criticized
strongly. Those who claim to be shepherds of the church, those who are
teachers of the church, should be leading this criticism. They should not
be cowering, they should not be bowing the knee to Satan’s wind.
5) I am attacking the ugliness of
Islam, real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam. There are many great, wonderful,
Muslim people, who are moral and kind. They are friends. They
should never be harmed or discriminated against.
If I am wrong in any of those statements above, it should be easy for a Fuller Islamic-ministry scholar to prove me wrong. Perhaps I’ve missed a sura in the Quran, perhaps I’ve overlooked something in Bukhari or Muslim, maybe there are some sira chapters I’m unaware of. Prove me wrong. It should be easy for you. Otherwise repent, because you are damaging the body of Christ.
___
REFERENCES
1. Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi,
India, 1987, translated by M. Khan
2. Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih Muslim”, International Islamic
Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971, translated by A. Siddiqi
in Christ,
silas 13/12/17
silas 13/12/17
No comments:
Post a Comment