A COMMENTARY ON ISLAM AND THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Larry Poston, Nyack College

Let me begin with a declaration of my own convictions regarding the world religions in order to locate myself on the theological spectrum for all who read what follows. Using the threefold distinction that is currently in use (universalism, inclusivism, and exclusivism), I am firmly in the "exclusivist" camp. In other words, I believe that the Bible teaches that apart from a personal and voluntary acknowledgment of Jesus the Christ as Lord and Master of one's life, along with a recognition of His resurrection and all that the resurrection implies (Romans 10:9-10), a person cannot be "born again" (in accordance with John 3:1-6) and will not be granted eternal life with God. I believe that the Bible indicates that all religious beliefs and practices that have come into existence apart from those arising out of a very narrow "stream" of God's revelation of Himself through Old Testament Israelite faith and New Testament ekklesia faith are the products of Satanic/demonic deception amplified and developed by human sinfulness and rebellion.

Let me make it clear, however, that my disagreements with Islam are of an entirely theological nature. I would never seek to critique or attack the Muslim faith on the basis of history, morality, or any area other than theology. For centuries Christians have been attempting to argue against Islam in these areas, and are still attempting to do so today. But such attempts invariably result in Christians losing all credibility in the eyes of Muslims, and as a consequence we are often not allowed to even mention matters of theology, which is where the truly significant issues lie. Why do we lose our credibility? There are two reasons. First, our knowledge of Islamic history, beliefs and practices is nearly always wrong, leading Muslims either to laugh at or despise our ignorance. Second, we have failed to understand our own history, beliefs, and practices as they appear to Muslims.

So, let's begin with Islam. To be specific, let's begin with the stereotype which exists regarding the Islamic religion in general. Was there "a declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century?" Was Muhammad "a murderer?" Is Islam "a religion of violence and hatred?" Are there "more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam?" Do "terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad?" Do "all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world?" The answer to each of these questions-as well as most questions like them-is an unequivocal and resounding "No!!" To make any of these claims before a Muslim audience would bring about an instantaneous and total loss of credibility.

"Conversion by the sword?" Such a concept is completely alien to Quranic Islam. Surah (chapter) 2:256 of the Qur'an commands: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy Handhold, that never breaks." In other words, no one is ever to be compelled to accept Islam. Muslims believe that the truth of their faith is self-evident and will convince anyone who examines it. And Surah 16:125 tells how the message is to go forth: "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." So-there is to be an invitation to all persons to adopt Islam, not compulsion; there is to be a display of wisdom and beautiful preaching, not a sword at one's throat; and even arguments are to be conducted "graciously."

Now make no mistake: Muslims do have a global agenda. In the same way that Christians are under the commands of Jesus to "Preach the gospel to every creature" and "Make disciples in all the nations," Muslims believe that Allah has commanded them to spread the Kingdom of Islam throughout the entire world, and they believe that it is the duty of Muslims to spread the "gospel" of Islam to every man, woman, and child on the planet. But people are to be invited, not compelled. Muslims-just like evangelical Christians-realize that someone who is forced to adopt another faith cannot be expected to do anything more than harbor a deep resentment toward both that faith and those who forced him/her to adopt it. It was said of early Christianity that "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church"-and Muslims knew that very well. To make Christianity grow by persecuting its members was the last thing they wanted to do, because they were convinced that the teachings of Islam had been revealed as a replacement for Christianity.

So, then, what of jihad, the infamous "holy war?" In the first place, the word jihad does not mean "holy war." The word in Arabic for war is harb, not jihad. Jihad comes from the verb "jahada," which means "to strive with all one's might, to struggle, to exert effort." Thus from the standpoint of original Islam, jihad means "to strive, to exert effort, to give everything you've got to extend the Islamic kingdom throughout the earth." Surah 9:20 is a good example: "Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive [jahadu] with might and main in Allah's cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah. They are the people who will achieve salvation."

But couldn't fighting and warring be considered "striving with might and main?" Certainly they could; and there are verses in the Qur'an which appear to extend the idea of jihad to include "fighting" - these are the verses that are usually taken out of context to show that jihad means "holy war." Many, for instance, like to quote the first line of Surah 2:190, which says: "Fight in the cause of Allah *" But first of all, the word "fight" here is not jahada, and second, the full text of the verse goes like this: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors." In other words, Muslims have permission-one could say that they are commanded-to fight against those who attack them first, as a defensive maneuver, but even then there are limits to such a military action, and Muslims are not permitted to go beyond those limits.

Another passage that is often quoted is the very next verse (2:191): "And slay them wherever you catch them *" But this is still speaking of those who attack the Muslims first - they are commanded to defend themselves and to slay their attackers. And the very next verse (v. 192) says: "But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving and most merciful." In other words, if those who attack the Muslims cease their attacks, then Muslims are to follow Allah's example and be merciful and forgiving.

But what about those who do not choose to convert to Islam and remain non-Muslims-such as Jews and Christians? The Qur'an teaches that Jews and Christians are to be granted a special status as dhimmis ("the protected people") and ahl al-kitab ("the people of the Book"-meaning that Jews and Christians have a sacred book). Muhammad recognized a kinship with Jews and Christians as monotheists who acknowledged the same Old Testament prophets as Muslims did (and do). While claiming (as we would) that many Christians and Jews are hypocrites and not truly righteous people, Surah 3:113-115 states that: "Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (for the right): they rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long. And they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those that do right." And if you want to get really technical with respect to the People of the Book, there is even evidence of some "favoritism," for Muhammad shows a pronounced bias toward Christians: "And nearest among them in love to the Believers you will find those who say "we are Christians": because among these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Surah 5:82).

So - if this is what the Qur'an teaches, and this is what Muslims believe, does history bear all of this out? Is this what Muslims have done in real life? The answer is "yes and no." One could say that what we've talked about above is the theory, and, just like Christians, Muslims have struggled to make theory actually function in practice. But there is no question that the original jihadic missionary strategy which was implemented after Muhammad's death involved the following:· The extension of a da'wah, an invitation made to a nation or people group to submit to Islamic rule and law, this submission being considered to be in a people's best interests;

· The promise that all monotheists (i.e., Jews and Christians) would be granted the status of a protected person (dhimmi) within the Muslim state in return for the payment of a special tax called jizya (2.5% of one's income). Christians and Jews would be allowed to retain their houses of worship, their own school systems, their own court systems, and the like;

· The elimination of previous statuses such as that of "heretic," accorded by the Roman Catholic Church to the monophysites of Egypt and the Nestorian Christians spread throughout the Middle East;

· The promise of battle against all those who resisted with violence.

Since in the 7th century the Christians of North Africa and the Middle East were largely under the Byzantine Empire, which charged them about 16% of their income in taxes, and since the official Church had declared many of the Christians in these areas to be "heretics" and had excommunicated them from the Church, the Muslims had very little trouble persuading enormous numbers of people that they were actually getting a bargain by submitting to Islamic rule. And so most did - with very little bloodshed, relatively speaking. There were, of course, exceptions; persons who did not accept the da'wah and who resisted the Muslims. Such persons were slain. But after only 100 years, Islam controlled all the territory westward across north Africa up into Spain to the Pyrenees mountains, all of the Middle East and deep into the Balkan region and the area around the Adriatic and Black Seas, and eastward out to what we would today call northeastern India. And they were able to win so much territory so quickly because their "deal" was gladly - in some cases gratefully - accepted by most. And over the next 400 years, there were so many material benefits to be gained by converting to Islam that most Christians and many Jews made the switch-voluntarily.

By now I'm sure there is a large group of readers who are scratching their heads and saying something like, "Wow! This is the exact opposite of all that I've ever been taught or heard! You make the Muslims sound like just the finest kind of people, and all this stuff about Muslim violence is just a myth! But you are just one person against the whole "truth" of history books, commentators, etc. Maybe it's you (meaning me, the author) who has the story wrong!"

Well, hold on! We're not finished yet! But hopefully you can at least begin to appreciate why right now Muslims all over the world, along with many of our statesmen, including our President, are saying that Muslims are really peace-loving people and that the Qur'an does not teach violence, terrorism or anything even close to it. They are precisely right - for the reasons that I've stated above. So where did Muslims get their reputations as warmongers? There are three sources. First, the Arabs of Muhammad's time were indeed "fighters" - the various tribes occupying the Arabian peninsula regularly raided each others' villages, and this love of fighting certainly carried over into the expansion of the religion. The jihadic strategy described above worked very well and made bloodshed on a mass scale unnecessary in all but a few places, but Muslim generals and warriors were never "wimps" - they loved a good fight and would use any sign of resistance or belligerence as an opportunity to use their military skills. Second, throughout Islamic history there have been many struggles within the Muslim community as well as attacks on Muslims from outside the borders of their empire, making military prowess a valued characteristic. And third, in the 1200s Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes-probably the fiercest fighters in the history of the planet-swept out of the east and conquered enormous amounts of Muslim territory. Gradually the Mongols themselves became Muslims, but in many cases their warrior culture was joined to the culture of Islam.

But all of these things sound like they occurred a long time ago. Where do the present-day terrorists - who call themselves "good and faithful Muslims"

- get the justification for their acts? Remember that we noted earlier from Surah 2:290 that Muslims are allowed-actually commanded-to fight against those who fight them. Precisely here lies the root of the problems that we face today, because Muslims believe that we (meaning Christians in general) have been attacking and fighting them for a long time; about 900 years to be exact. And this is where we must swing to the other side of the story, a somewhat uncomfortable side for those of us who name the name of Christ. For the sad truth of the matter is that with respect to religiously-inspired bloodshed, the historical record of Christians is at least as bad-and most scholars would say that it is far worse-than that of Muslims.

In 1095 the Roman Catholic Pope Urban II called for the formation of a Holy Crusade-a "Holy War," if you will-against the "infidel Mohammedans" occupying Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The First Crusade was "successful," if by success you mean the bloodshed, rape, pillage, theft, and burning that went on, all in the name of Christianity, that led to the capture of Jerusalem. It is recorded that the blood and gore left in Jerusalem by the European knights' horses trampling bodies underfoot was over three feet deep throughout most of the streets. There was never a thought of winning Muslims to Christ by preaching the gospel to them; they were slaughtered like animals instead. This crusade was followed by 6 other major campaigns over the next 200 years, finally coming to a halt near the end of the 1200s. But the cruelty and viciousness of the Christian Crusaders was never forgotten by the Muslim peoples of the Middle East - just as the Spanish Inquisition was never forgotten by the Muslims of Spain in the 1400s (and just as the Conquistadors were never forgotten by the Indians of South and Latin America in the 1500s, and so on). Make no mistake - from the standpoint of history, Christianity has never looked very good to the rest of the world.

"But wait a minute," I'm sure you're protesting by now. "Those people weren't really Christians! They might have called themselves that, but they weren't following the teachings of Christ." You are entirely correct - and I hope that that's what you're thinking. Because if you are, then you understand precisely what the vast majority of Muslims are saying right now about "Islamic terrorists:" "Those people aren't really Muslims. They might call themselves that, but they're not following the teachings of Muhammad." And you also understand why if we as Christians try to prove from history that Muslims are evil, violent, and terrible people while Christians have always preached a gospel of peace and love, we come off as the most hypocritical people on the face of the planet *

But hang on; it gets even more complicated! We still haven't answered the question of the motivation of the terrorists who are calling themselves Muslims. So - back to the Crusades. We in America believe that these were all a thing of the long distant past; they were all over by A.D. 1300. But Muslims don't see things that way. As far as they're concerned, an 8th Crusade began in 1948, and is still being fought today. When the nation of Israel was established by Western powers in May of 1948, the Muslim world saw this act as a continuation of what was begun in 1095 - Israel is just the latest installment in the West's attempts to infiltrate and conquer the Muslim world. Muslims ask by what authority Great Britain and other Western powers carved out a piece of land that had been Muslim territory since the 640s and simply gave it to the Jewish people? The answer given is that it was "by right of conquest" - the British had received Palestine as spoils of war when the Muslim Ottoman Empire was dismantled, so it was "theirs" to give. But of course if that's the way it works, then the Muslims reason that they could fight to take it back, and "by right of conquest," it would be theirs again to keep. Hence all the wars that have been fought between the Israelis and the Muslim nations that surround Israel. If we can use the concept of "by right of conquest," then so can they.

Some of you are probably thinking that this is silly; the West doesn't want to conquer the Islamic world. But listen carefully to some of the rhetoric of the conservative Jewish groups and political parties in the U.S. and in Israel (some of the most conservative of whom are in power right now). "God gave Israel to the Jews, and it will always be their land." Even Evangelical Christians echo this cry on a regular basis, in books, on radio, on television. But what is "Israel" from a biblical perspective? The conservative Jews use an expression taken from Genesis 15:18: "from the River to the River." The first river referred to is the Nile river in Egypt; and the second is the Euphrates, in modern Iraq. So when conservative Israelis say that they won't stop fighting until all of Biblical Israel is again in the hands of the Jews, they're talking about half of Egypt, all of the Sinai peninsula, all of the nation of Israel, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan, a huge portion of Syria, and half of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Now when Muslims hear that kind of rhetoric, all of a sudden it's not a religious thing anymore, it's a political thing: "these Israelis want our [Muslim] territory, and we're not going to let them have it!"

So the establishment of Israel in 1948 was an "attack" against Muslims, and the continued rhetoric of some Israelis (as well as some evangelical Christians) is interpreted as an "attack" as well - this is how terrorists such as Osama bin Laden (and many others) see things. And, to say it once again, the Qur'an gives full permission - even "commands" - Muslims to fight back when attacked.

Now there has been no more staunch supporter of Israel than the United States. We have supported them financially (with billions of dollars), militarily (with tons of armament and weapons systems) and politically (with unrelenting support in the United Nations, in Congress, etc.). Consequently we have "attacked" the Muslim world-we are guilty by our association with Israel-and consequently we are, in the eyes of the terrorists, legitimate objects of attacks from them. Hence the three targets of September 11: The World Trade Center (economics), the Pentagon (military) and (presumably the target of the 4th plane) the White House (political). September 11 was a horrific, symbolic statement that if the U.S. continues to support Israel, acts of terrorism will be our future, these attacks being legitimate from the standpoint of the terrorists' interpretation of the Qur'an and recent world history.

Is there a resolution for all of this? As pessimistic as it sounds, there probably isn't. The situation has become far too complex. From the standpoint of politics, for instance, there are no good options. Even if we (the U.S.) were to lay down all support for Israel (which I cannot personally believe we would ever do), this would not really solve anything, and would most likely make things much worse. If the Israelis were left isolated and then attacked militarily, they might well be forced to resort to the nuclear weapons they are reputed to have - and we certainly don't want to see nuclear weapons used in a region from which 40% of the world's oil production comes. On the other hand, continued support by the U.S., along with the eschatologically-ignited pro-Israel rhetoric of certain Christian conservatives, will keep the pot boiling and more terrorist attacks will be the result, unless President Bush's counteroffensives succeed. We should pray for all authorities and decision makers - on a daily basis - in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:1-4 "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."

From the standpoint of individual Christians, let me make the following suggestions. First, be careful with respect to your view of Israel. I am not at all saying that we should lay aside our support for a Jewish homeland, but let's not be naïve and uninformed about what is happening there, and let's not allow an eschatological position to drive our interpretation of current events. The nation of Israel today is populated by people the Bible calls unbelievers. These are people who have "experienced a hardening" and who have been "set aside" until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (see Romans 11). The Jews of Israel are no more righteous before God than are the Muslim peoples of the world, and the Good News of God's love and salvation is to be preached to both. Neither one is more important than the other from the standpoint of the Gospel.

Second, study Islam. More important, get to know Muslims. Learn to know them as they are: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, classmates, work colleagues, etc. See them first as human beings, and only secondarily as Muslims. Speak with them about ordinary things of life, and about your own faith and beliefs. Make your relationship as natural as possible, so that you befriend them. Understand what makes them tick; let them understand what makes you tick. Examine your Christian life to make sure there are no "holes" - because just as we've been taught that they are "chauvinistic, violent, terrorist-type people," they've been taught that we are immoral hypocrites who are ignorant of the teachings of our Holy Book and who don't know the first thing about spirituality. Let's prove them wrong!