In a recent contribution in The Atlantic, Graeme Wood published a piece entitled, “What ISIS Really Wants.” It’s an enriching read, offering a crystalline examination of ISIS. Personally, it wasn’t until I read this particular piece that I truly understood the difference between ISIS and other Islamic terroristic organizations, like Al-Qaeda or Hamas. Before today I lumped such groups into the same radicalistic category, but Wood helped me see that this is like comparing poisonous apples to explosive-laced oranges.
Both are dangerous, but one is objectively more terrible.
(It’s the oranges)
Groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas are certainly terroristic, but they are, startlingly as it sounds, alleviated versions of Islam, while ISIS is its unsullied counterpart. According to Wood, ISIS is the unblemished embodiment of Islam. When we see a line of black-hooded men beheading twenty-one Egyptian Christians, we ought to think, “This is perfectly Islam.”
“The reality is that the Islamic State [ISIS] is Islamic. Very Islamic.” -Graeme Wood
Wood stresses that ISIS is, at its most fundamental level, a religious organization. Like Roman Catholicism, ISIS has a supreme leader to lead their faith. They call him their “caliph.” His name is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and he is the “first caliph in generations.” Some say the first since 1924, when the Ottoman Caliphate ended. The caliph and his Islamic State “requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it.” And in this territory and under this rule this State revives its “medieval religious nature,” which includes “slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings.” Bernard Haykel, the foremost secular authority on the Islamic State’s ideology, writes that ISIS is “smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and [is] bringing it wholesale into the present day.” True Muslims are expected to immigrate to wherever this territory is (in this case Mosul, Iraq) and serve the caliph. Any Muslim that fails to do this is an apostate and is marked for death.
Therefore, to answer Wood’s opening question, which is, “What is the Islamic State?” the answer is, “It’s the epitome of the religion of Islam,” and this is a politically incorrect, yet boldly authentic declaration. Haykel says that Muslims who call the Islamic state “un-Islamic are typically embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion that neglects what their religion has historically and legally required.” “[Haykel] regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance.” “People,” Haykel says, “want to absolve Islam … [with the] ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra.’”
ISIS insists that “they will not–cannot–waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers.” “Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.” Alongside Muhammad, ISIS has its own version of the Christian Church’s “church fathers,” called Salafism, which means “the pious forefathers.” “These forefathers are the Prophet himself and his earliest adherents.” ISIS “honors and emulates” these individuals “as the models for all behavior, including warfare, couture, family life, even dentistry.”
Thus, the warmongering caliphs in Islam’s history are to ISIS what the peacemaking Jesus, Paul, and Augustine are to the Christian Church.
“Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years.” -Wood
This is a striking thought, especially when one considers President Obama’s statements at the 2015 National Prayer Breakfast, where he suggested that the terrible acts of ISIS are based on a “twisted and distorted” view of Islam. According to Wood and Haykel, however, they aren’t. It’s not that ISIS has gotten Islam wrong. It’s that they have achieved it perfectly. ISIS is Islam, at it finest.
Politically correct? Resoundingly not. Historically and religiously accurate? Unapologetically yes.
The stubborn reality is that ISIS believes that, with their new caliph, their kingdom has come. In some ways, the caliph’s return is to ISIS (and therefore Islam) what Jesus’ return is to the Christian (and therefore Christianity). In the way a Christian would want to journey to Jerusalem if Jesus had returned and was physically reigning there is how ISIS feels about their caliph. Baghdadi is no mere leader. He’s number eight of twelve total caliphs that will lead Islam to world domination, via barbaric murders of apostate infidels. And to be clear, everyone who disagrees with ISIS’ Islam, from the Al-Qaeda Muslim to the American Christian, is marked for death. ISIS has released the beast of the Holocaust, but in this case the Jews are but one kind of infidel. You and I are another.
This is the politically incorrect truth that ISIS teaches us about Islam.
To be clear, this is radically different from other religions, particularly Christianity. President Obama, for whatever reason, feels the need to argue that ISIS’ actions are “not unique” to Islam, citing the Crusades as a parallel example for how Christians terrorized innocent people. But there is a big difference. ISIS is the realization of Islam, while murdering innocent people in the name of Christ is, without question, not the realization of Christianity.
Timothy Keller, in The Reason for God, offers sound thoughts on the divisive effects religion can have on the world, but also clarifies the unique peace of Christ and his followers:
“Religion can certainly be one of the major threats to world peace … [but] at the very heart of [the Christian] view of reality [is] a man who died for his enemies … We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians’ most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-marking in our troubled world?”
Summarized, Keller is saying that Christianity is not the same as ISIS, or any religion for that matter. I think this is proven with ISIS’ most recent beheading video, (as if it hadn’t already been by the others.)
Are there Islamic Muslims who disagree with ISIS’ interpretation of the religion? Of course. Both Wood and Haykel acknowledge this. But it’s imperative that we understand that any non-ISIS Islam is, in the least, a manipulated version of true Islam, (like what Mormonism is to Christianity), but more likely a mitigated version of it. This means that many Islamic Muslims are apostates to true Islam, (but this is a good thing, in some cases better than others, although all cases are unfortunate).
ISIS believes that they play a crucial role in the finality of all things. “The Islamic State … believes that it is written into God’s script as a central character.” ISIS has special interest in the Syrian city of Dabiq, believing that the armies of Rome” (many ISIS sources interpret this as America) will set up camp there. Here ISIS will prevail (which is why they continue to entice us into war), even receiving help from Jesus, who will return to earth and lead the Muslims to victory.
In my biblically expositional estimation, however, the Islamic State (or at least anyone operating in accordance with it) will be astonishingly surprised by Jesus, like Mace Windu was when Anakin chose Palpatine over him and was subsequently Sith Lightninged to death. When Jesus comes back he will not defend the Islamic State. He will establish his kingdom, and he will reign as the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
“And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh” (Rev 19:20-21).
“And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev 19:16).
Quotes taken from Graeme Wood’s “What ISIS Really Wants.”
Originally posted on jaredwellman.com
Here’s the problem with this approach. You say:
“Are there Islamic Muslims who disagree with ISIS’ interpretation of the religion? Of course. Both Wood and Haykel acknowledge this. But it’s imperative that we understand that any non-ISIS Islam is, in the least, a manipulated version of true Islam, (like what Mormonism is to Christianity), but more likely a mitigated version of it. This means that many Islamic Muslims are apostates to true Islam, (but this is a good thing, in some cases better than others, although all cases are unfortunate).”
Islam has around 1.8 billion adherents. ISIS Islam has, what, one million? Hundreds of thousands? But you and your go-to source labels ISIS Islam as “true” Islam and the 1.7+ billion non-ISIS as a “manipulated” or “mitigated” version of “true” Islam and “apostates” to the same. This is nonsense, of course, but leave it to Baptist preachers who have probably never been to a Muslim country, never been exposed to different Islamic sects to make flat, uncomplicated, authoritative statements like these. At least show an awareness that there are deep divisions among Muslims that are centuries old as a main point rather than as an escape hatch afterthought.
If we want to demonize all Muslims, this is the way to do it: let a Christian tell the 1.8b Muslims of the world, and everyone else, what “true” Islam is, point to the few genocidal adherents as the “true” Islam and then wrap that around the whole of Islam. Cast this stuff out there so that when your congregation encounters a Muslim they can think that here’s a guy, a woman, who if they weren’t an apostate would be murderous, genocidal, barbaric terrorist.
If you don’t intend to do the above, then be more clear about what you intend here.
Why I agree with your assertion to refrain from using a broad brush, much of the OP was from a very good article in The Atlantic written by a “non-Baptist preacher”. There are other reputable sources as well that are starting to drill down into the reality of the belief system of ISIS. Here’s another one:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/index.html
Bottom line: Just as it is inaccurate to paint all Muslims with the ISIS brush, it is also inaccurate to pass ISIS off as just another JV terror group with political aspirations ala Al Quaeda.
*While I agree
William,
You said, “If you don’t intend to do the above, then be more clear about what you intend here.”
Your response is befuddling to me because you quoted the part of the article in which I make an intentional effort to say that not all Muslims are terrorists, and then use it to suggest that I am an ignorant preacher teaching my people to disdain Muslims.
The idea of the article, especially the part you quoted, is that ISIS embodies what Islam fundamentally is, and that an Islamic practicing Muslim who doesn’t follow ISIS’ interpretation of the religion is practicing a mitigated version of the religion, and that this is a good thing, because it means he isn’t bent on beheading everyone that disagrees with him. I understand that this is politically incorrect, but that’s the point. I think it would be ignorant to ignore this assertion.
This is what the foremost scholars are saying.
Of course many disagree with this assessment, but the sentiment has warrant beyond me, which is why I heavily cited the source.
Also, I have been to the Middle East several times and do have background in religious studies including Islam.
Jared, don’t put words in my mouth and don’t get your feeling hurt here. If I want to call you an ignorant Baptist preacher teaching your people to hate all Muslims, I have the vocabulary to do that. I didn’t. My only speculative assertion was about your travel history.
This piece is part of a genre that has had currency among us since 911. It works well in our circles (where I hear snide remarks about our “Muslim” president regularly, but not since Sunday morning). The caveats and provisos about not all Muslims being like ISIS were overwhelmed by the rest. This is classic demonizing of a group by associating the group with a tiny sliver of its composition.
You might give that a little thought.
William,
Thanks for the reply.
I’m genuinely trying to respond in a way that doesn’t come across the wrong way. Know that my feelings aren’t hurt, but I appreciate the concern.
My last reply was an attempt to point out the irony of how your response echoed your concerns of the article. It was like saying, “Let’s murder all the abortionists!”
And my goal was to show you that your concerns weren’t a concern, because you misread them.
I took the following comments (assumptions?),
“… leave it to Baptist preachers who have probably never been to a Muslim country, never been exposed to different Islamic sects to make flat, uncomplicated, authoritative statements like these …”
and
“Cast this stuff out there so that when your congregation encounters a Muslim they can think that here’s a guy, a woman, who if they weren’t an apostate would be murderous, genocidal, barbaric terrorist.”
and summarized them. I do apologize if I misread your comments.
Also, I still think you are still missing the point of the article. And by doing so you are making the point of it.
Simple point, if you say I said something, then let it be something I said, otherwise, you’re putting words in my mouth.
You aren’t getting this. I’m around a considerable population of Muslims who would read this and say, “There the Christians go again…” The trigger in your article for me, and I don’t see that you recognize this, is the loud touting of “true” Islam cast against the afterthought of a disclaimer that not all of the 1.8 billion Muslims are like ISIS. Indeed.
I get this kind of stuff occasionally when someone will breathlessly tell me “You know, the Koran says…” or, “Muslims believe…” followed by whatever barbaric act. You are slightly above that but not by much (“This is perfectly Islam” ” ISIS is Islam, at it finest.”). Exactly what are the 1.7+ billion other Muslims who don’t fly planes into buildings, don’t burn people alive, and don’t behead folks supposed to say?
If you are being clever, try not being so clever.
It’s a simple point to say, as did George Will that ISIS is an expression of a genocidal thrust along the lines of the National Socialists rather than an expression of the use of violence for political ends. He didn’t end up implying that but for some “mitigation” all Muslims would be thus.
I’ve read your stuff here. You can do a lot better than this.
I’ve said this in other replies, but the intent of the article is evangelistic.
It’s politically incorrect (and allegedly insulting, and just plumb difficult) to suggest that ISIS reveals the totality of the religion of Islam, because there are Muslims who practice a version of the religion peacefully. My argument, sourced from Wood and Haykel, (and other sources from my past research), is that such Muslims are not practicing the religion accurately, based on its historical roots, in the way a Mormon doesn’t practice Christianity accurately, based on its historical roots.
I understand that this is an unsettling statement, but that is kind of the point of the article. Sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is always stubborn. So, to you I would say, “I am getting it.” This certainly doesn’t mean that I desire to demean or bemoan an Islamic Muslim, but to show the inherent evil of the religion. Again, politically incorrect, but perhaps theologically accurate.
How is a non-ISIS Muslim supposed to respond to this? Well, I would hope that he would begin to see the inherent nature of evil in Islam, and turn to Jesus.
As we know, Jesus offers the only true way to God, and all Muslims need to know this. My thoughts are that showing them the logical fulfillment of their religion via ISIS is a tough, but possible way to do that.
Jared,
I think your last two paragraphs here are spot on.
Is more than one Caliphate legal? How does Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad ,elected as the fifth Khalifa (Caliph) fit into this picture?
Chris, he’s the Ahmadiyya caliph…which is kinda the “mormonism” of Islam. Most muslims think they’re apostates anyways.
Thanks Adam,…so just another guy that wants a following… hmmm. How is it that Muslims know which one is the real deal?
Jared,
I read the article in the Atlantic this morning as well – it’s well written and informative.
We had a missionary to Muslim people’s at our church last Sunday and he spoke of how ISIS is doing more for the cause of gospel advancment among middle easterners than anything else – he said essentially what the article said – that ISIS is the real fundamental/Koran faithful group (they do exactly as instructed in the Koran) while the others – even Al Queda are actually moderate forms – this is leading the “Muslims in name only” (most of the world’s “Muslims”) to run from the false religion.
UBL (and his successors) believe themselves to be “pre-ushers” of the caliphate. Right now theres tension between the two groups (and that’s good for Israel and the west) – but if those tensions are ever mended and the groups meld – then there’s gonna be big trouble.
Thanks for the article, btw.
Thank you Tarheel.
One troubling truth for Christians: there is startlingly little difference between the tactics and motivation of ISIS and the tactics and motivation of Joshua and the Israelites at the conquest of Canaan. Destruction, execution, conquest, pillage, forced marriages, etc, etc, all in the name of God.
Chris R,..I’m beginning to see why the pastoring gig did not fit well with your newly realized paradigm.
Not believing the things you are preaching does tend to put a hamper on things.
yes it does!
Chris J.: Chris R. is simply repeating the junk peddled by the late Christopher Hitchens and the other noted New Atheists of our day. Kind of boring really, when one realizes that religious liberty came out of what most would consider the extreme right wing of the Christian Faith, even what would today be classified as right-wing funnydamnmentalists. Just consider the two men who put the belief of religious liberty into legal precept and practice. I refer, of course, to Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke (who had a whole lot more to do with it than most people imagine). Williams, while a Baptist for only about three months are so in practice and a Puritan, Sovereign Grace believer, Calvinist, all the days of his life, yet wrote to the Dr. Clarke or the FBC of Newport, R.I., or both, that he was still a Baptist in sentiment about in the last years of his life. Dr. Clarke and Williams both worked together on the matter of getting the charter for Rhode Island (called, I think, Providence Plantation in the beginning) for about 20 years, spending years in England at various times, getting it done. The result of their effort was the building of the first synagogue in the New World which, according to my last account, is still standing and in use. The key to all of this is the biblical and Christian demand that the process of conversion be by persuasion alone. Both General and Particular Baptists were agreed upon this issue. Even in Virginia, when George Washington and Patrick Henry offered a compromise to the Baptists and Presbyterians to make every one the state church, the latter were inclined to accept as they had been such in Scotland. However, the former, the Baptists, out of principle and having had the experience of 10,000 or more converts in Virginia prior to the 1787 Religious Liberty Statute, said no, and they had, so I understand the votes to back it up. As a result Jefferson wrote the religious liberty statute. And this, in turn, would be followed by the agreement made between James Madison and John Leland, Madison was the political statesman, but Leland had the votes and no political influence. In order for Madison to win the right to go to the Constitutional Convention, he had to make a deal with Leland. The latter agreed to withdraw and throw his support to Madison, and Madison would see to secure religious liberty which he did later with the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The problem for Chris R. is that he lives in a nation, where religious liberty was the result of the beliefs of the very denomination of people which he preached at one time. O, and by the way, it was just voting. Elijah Craig as head of the Committee of Baptists met with the Colonial Legislators of Virginia and made an agreement that in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers would go back to their communities and encourage their young men to enlist in the Patriots’ Cause (read join in a civil war against a duly constituted government, the one with more rights than any other in Europe).
The one thing that is truly anathema to Baptists above all others is the use of force, chicanery, trickery, con artist tricks, manipulation, etc., to make converts. Such converts are, usually, not truly converted and, indeed, cannot be, if they are not persuaded to give their free assent (by free, I mean an assent free from all of the stuff mentioned, and more). All of this comes from the Bible which is a progressive revelation in the sense that the ethics continue to develop after the Fall of man to the point where one even loves one enemies. Our Lord Himself is the pre-eminent patter, having given His life for His enemies which, I trust, included me, once a professing atheist and an enemy of the Christian Faith out to make converts to Atheism.
Dr. J, You are right my friend. It is the same ole stuff…now with even more words to parse! Thank goodness for expanded vocabulary, or the budding Atheist would have little to talk about.
Chris Roberts,
The tactics and motivation is troubling for Christians? Probably! American Christians tend to view history as if American culture is the pinnacle of civilization.
But warfare is like that. And whether a human involved in war is Christian, Moslem, agnostic or atheist, warfare is still ugly.
So what is the point you are making? Are you implying Christians are hypocrites because they are opposed to Allah and in favor of Yahweh?
The primary relevant difference between Islam and Free Church Christianity is that the Qur’an stipulates a relationship between Islam and the state, while the New Testament contains no such linkage. Islam has adapted to non-Islamic states where it does not have a majority. Islamic states have taken various approaches toward adherents of other faiths, sometimes practicing comparatively generous religious tolerance (Suleiman, Senegal), and sometimes practicing harsh religious intolerance (Saudi Arabia, Iran under Khomeni, etc.).
Granted, Christianity has also experienced church-state fusions (motivated by a wrongheaded understanding of the relationship between the testaments), but the New Testament permits what the Qur’an does not: A radical and exclusivist faith that does not harness the coercive power of the state to try to compel converts.
Thanks, Jared, for a clear article on an important point.
Thanks Bart. And thanks for the insightful additions.
For those of you who are too kind and tender the following is the definition of moderate and radical muslims.
Radical muslim: Wants to behead you.
Moderate muslim: Wants a radical muslim to behead you.
“Radical muslim: Wants to behead you.
Moderate muslim: Wants a radical muslim to behead you.
My goodness. How politically incorrect. I agree with you. I saw it after 9/11 up close and personal. Too many American Muslims were thrilled the US was attacked to viciously.
I see it in my work with Muslim refugees. I saw it up close and person with the Muslim students who lived with us during the late 70’s during the Iranian revolution. Some of those Iranian students had parents who were murdered because of their work for American companies. I even saw it with my work with Afghan Muslims and setting up health clinics there.
All of these are different Muslim cultures with an underlying theme that is always present. Shame/Honor.
I have to go with William here. Nothing irritates Calvinists or non-Calvinists more than being told what they believe by someone outside their group. I’m not sure the value of telling people that ISIS is the true embodiment of Islam. What’s the point? Offending peaceful Muslims? Check. Making non-Muslims fearful of all Muslims? Check. What if they (Muslims) believe you? Suppose you convince these apostate Muslims to return to the true faith (as defined by you and ISIS)?
I read one report of someone who was held hostage by ISIS. He said they gave very little thought to religion.
Hey Bill. I would say that the real value is to point them to the true God, which is what I do at the end of the article, via Tim Keller’s statements.
“I read one report of someone who was held hostage by ISIS. He said they gave very little thought to religion.”
I am curious why that is surprising. There is no difference between their religion or government. It is all the same. It encompasses all of life from food to dress, etc. Their very existence is religious in their view.
For those of us who are pastors or teachers, this article may be helpful for us concerning this issue:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2015/february/what-isis-wants.html?paging=off
Well, after reading the point/counter-point here, I’ll speak for myself. I have been to a few predominately Muslim countries, and I also read the Atlantic Monthly article. It was excellent, and very helpful in framing the complicated distinctions involved.
There is a book called “Son of Hamas” that is the biography of a man who was raised by a founder of Hamas, but became an undercover spy for Israel, and is now a Christian.
It’s a great read, and it discusses the mindset of groups like Al-Qaeda and Hamas. I used to lump ISIS into this.
Wood’s article is worthwhile in that it discusses how ISIS is vastly different from Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and the question becomes self-evident as to what the major difference is between these two kinds of Islamic groups. Wood and Haykel argue that it’s that ISIS is Islam, and that other Islamic groups are not purely Islam.
Many are asking why there is a need to point this out. I think there is a political need, a militaristic need, but more importantly a theological need.
The overall goal is evangelical. Islam, when followed to its logical end, is objectively wicked. Everyone needs to know this, yet we tend to dance around the politics of unapologetically saying it.
There is no demeaning intention in this article towards a non-ISIS Islamic practicing Muslim. Just an evangelical plea to turn to Jesus.
This is “Southern Baptist” Voices, after all, so let’s not forget our purpose as Southern Baptists … or as mere followers of Jesus for that matter.
“UBL (and his successors) believe themselves to be “pre-ushers” of the caliphate. Right now theres tension between the two groups (and that’s good for Israel and the west) – but if those tensions are ever mended and the groups meld – then there’s gonna be big trouble.”
If you read history, they have been slaughtering each other for centuries. But then they got a common enemy: Israel in 1948 as a nation state recognized by the world. And the preceding wars carved them up into nations instead of tribes helped to organize them into more brutality.
Muslim leaders were backing Hitler and looking to him to free the ME of Jews. Some of it very interesting. Iraq’s Ba’athist party al-Arsuzi were proud of their Nazi connections and how they influenced Ba’athist ideology. Then there is the Grand Mufit of Jerusalam, al Husseini who strategized with the Nazi’s. Ibn Saud sent an envoy to Hitler concerning driving the Jews out of the ME and promising support. The Muslim Arabs adored Rommel and even gave Hitler special names. It goes on and on. They could relate to Nazi ideology.
Lydia,
You need a “like” button on your posts. 🙂
You guys might find Jay Smith interesting. He is a Christian Islamic Scholar in London. He debates Muslims in Hyde Park from their perspective. He has a youtube channel. You might be put off with his debate method but he meets Muslims in their tradition.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-wOxG8p_Nk5nFkSxZOxq6w
Here he makes the claim based upon history that ISIS is following Mohammeds example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Z3GwQwmGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Z3GwQwmGY
I went through the British Museum once with Jay. Interesting little tour. I’ve seen him work at Speakers’ Corner.
I bet that was interesting. I wonder how staged speakers corner is? I am going to be in England late summer and would be interested to check it out.
Utter pandemonium.
Jared,
Thank you for writing this. I wrote a post on my own blog last week after President Obama’s Prayer Breakfast asking where/who the moderating, peaceful factor in Islam was? If Islam is truly peaceful, then by what means do faithful Muslims call themselves back to that core perspective? When we have run off into violence and oppression, Crusades and Inquisitions, warmongering and slave-holding, for example, Christians have Jesus as the reforming core to call us back to repentance. We can look back on our history and see where we fell short of following Christ and the results were devastating.
So, where/what do Muslims return to? I also read this article yesterday and found it to be troubling in that, if the core of Islam is the example and teachings of Muhammed, then the move would not be toward peace but toward violence in the name of Allah and bringing his kingdom. Muhammed led armies and was a conqueror. As Samuel Huntingdon once said, “Islam has bloody borders.”
Just like there is an apocalyptic nature to Christianity, there is one to Islam as well. I do not at all believe that the majority of Muslims agree with ISIS’ interpretation of Islam, but the fact that they are appealing to the core of the religion is what the West needs to pay attention to. Perhaps we are seeing a battle for the soul of Islam here?
It might have been mentioned here earlier, but I saw this today – where a man walks around Paris in a yarmulke and a hidden GoPro camera filming him. The reactions that he gets from the people in the neighborhoods are unbelievable. Just because he is a Jew.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-jew-in-paris/#post-comments
That video is sad, and sadly true. I’ve seen other videos of how Muslims attacked Christians, who were preaching the Gospel.
Islam is not a religion of peace. I know that some Muslims are peaceful. But, they go against the teachings of their Koran.
David
David,
Did you also see the video from Texas of Christians harassing a peaceful Muslim rally? There are many examples of that sort of thing. Glass houses, stones, etc.
Chris, such are the consequences of living in a free society. One has to put up with….oh wait…Muslims did not put up with Christians in Dearborn.
OTOH, name any Islamic country where Jews or non Muslims are “elected” to government.
Let’s start there.
Lydia,
“Someone raised a valid negative point about the behavior of some Christians which turns out to be just as bad as the non-Christian behavior I was criticizing! Quick! Let’s change the subject and hope no one notices!”
“Someone raised a valid negative point about the behavior of some Christians which turns out to be just as bad as the non-Christian behavior I was criticizing! Quick! Let’s change the subject and hope no one notices!”
Let me know when you and I have control over others bad behavior that is not breaking the law. We can only call the police.
Muslims have to get used to living in chaotic freedom just like the rest of us.
Lydia,
I’m not sure if you didn’t read the comment thread or what, but you’re doing a phenomenal job of missing my point. Throughout the comment thread there are a few comments criticizing Muslims for how they treat other people. I was responding to one such comment. My point is very simple: there are Christians who engage in the exact same behavior. If you want to criticize Muslims for doing it, let’s not forget about Christians doing it.
“So, where/what do Muslims return to?”
Great way to put it!
Attaturk was intent on Westernizing Islam but after that we see a constant tension in that approach because the nature of Islam is forced “submission”. Add to that the underlying shame/honor theme and individual freedom is something even cultural Muslims wrestle with.
Good point, Lydia. As Christians, we are a little bit limited in critiquing other religions because our criticism appears to be self-serving. But, when we ask questions of the religion like this and then wait for the answer – or compare the answer to the reality – then the critique happens on its own.
Thanks Alan.
Alan,
Bingo, the issue in every generation is to discover the original intent of the religion as expressed in the words and actions of the founder. We have Christ and they have Mohammed and yet we seem surprised when they live out their faith.
wilbur
“ISIS has released the beast …”
Those who have ears to hear, let him hear! It’s increasingly clear that the average Christian in America doesn’t have a clue in this regard. These are days to be teaching and preparing the people of God … most are uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant about Islam.
Great piece Jared! I would like to see you do a piece on “The Politically Incorrect Truth About Chrislam” sometime.
Thanks Max.
I say be careful around muslims because they use “taqyyia” religious and societal sanctioned lies to protect themselves. They deny the following verses but in reality the verses are the heart of their religion.
Quran surah 9:30
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
from the Hadiths
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jews behind me, come and kill him!’ (All the trees will say this except for the Gharqad (box-thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.
I will show my cards up front and say I sympathize to a large degree with the concerns William Thornton raises here. Though I have not yet read the artcle in The Atlantic (I hope to soon), I think describing “true Islam” is somewhat like describing “true Christianity.” There are various perspectives through which one might do this: i.e. theological, historical, political, cultural, sociological, statistical, etc., with various groups and subgroups vying for the honor of “most faithful” and “most authentic.”
I agree with the comment that there is a battle going on for the soul of Islam. It is not totally a new battle, but the current situation with ISIS has exacerbated it. I am concerned, in the meantime, with what a consistent application of the idea that ISIS represents “true Islam” means for the millions of non-ISIS Muslims living in the US and the West, and around the world in other countries. If we truly believe this, do we declare Islam an illegal religion? Do we round up Muslims and put them in concentration camps, whether there is any evidence to connect them personally with terrorism or not?
My big concern has to do with 1) the implications for religious liberty; 2) the implications for Christian evangelism and missions; and 3) the implications for world peace and security.
I think the following article, of which I reproduce here a few key quotes, does a good job of laying out in a balanced way, without denying the troubling historical roots of Islam, the complexity of the issues involved from a Christian perspective.
• “Ultimately it is up to Muslims to decide who is a real Muslim.”
• “There is nothing extremists want more than to make it look like the West is at war with Islam.”
• “Muslims are responding to the gospel as never before, and that trend will continue. Muslims are broken and becoming more broken as the days go by. More will reject Islam, but the danger is that they will reject Islam and become atheists. Christians must be on the alert to reach out to them with love and understanding.”
Here is the link to the article from which the quotes are taken: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/february-web-only/islam-inherently-violent-or-peaceful.html?paging=off#bmb=1
David, and William,
From the link provided by David:
>>>”Islam is a problem, but the main problem is sin. “Their feet are swift to shed blood … and the way of peace they have not known” [from Isa. 59 and Rom. 3] was written long before Islam was born.
I do not think Islam is the single motivation behind the radical and incredibly evil deeds that some Muslims are doing. Satan is simply using them as pawns.”<<>>”I do not think Islam is the single motivation behind the radical and incredibly evil deeds that some Muslims are doing. “<<<
What? Worshipping a false god whose prophet was a violent leader who used fear to gain and keep converts, and who claims to be Abraham's son and better than the Prince of Peace, is not enough motivation to do evil things? Isn't that alone enough to declare someone a pawn of Satan [thus every Muslim]?
Or could it be that these Muslims, fed up with an Islamic faith that fails to meet their spiritual needs, are looking for something deeper and more authentic than simply following a moderate path? [Not that will find it, but many will die trying.]
And you are willing to accept these words as truth bearing because this writer has better credentials?
Being a Muslim is not like being a true Christian.
David Rogers,
Would you say this is true…
…“Ultimately it is up to Christians to decide who is a real Christian.”
I would think that you would disagree with that. In fact there are amy who call themselves a Christian, who are most decidedly not a Christian. But what is a Christian, and how can one decide what and therefore who is a true Christian?
The answer is by their book, the Bible. The Bible is the words of God and in it we find out who and what are the children of God.
Now when the question is directed at the people of Islam, where are they going to go to find the answer?
Just as adherence to the Bible is going to separate the true Christian from the nominalist, so will the Koran cause division in the Muslim world.
By the exposing the Koran for what it is, a terrible book of evil, many Muslims will be forced to decide whether to adhere to what it says, and thus become extremist, or seek another path, another ‘God’.
And it is there that the Gospel will have great power, for as Alan has pointed out, we Christians can show the world how our false moves were wrong and opposed to Jesus, and thus repent of them, but the Muslims can only accept that extremism is the core of their faith. And many will reject that extremism and be open to the Lord.
But by continuing to allow the ‘moderate’ Muslim to live the lie of his or her faith, they are reinforced by their own perception of their own goodness [like any other false religion is] to stay right where they are, and see no need of seeing Jesus as Lord. Al the while they are living as enemies of God.
What can set them free from their false perception? The truth sets them free: the negative truth of what they are worshipping and the positive truth of Jesus, the crucified and risen Lord of all.
Jake, a Christian educating the masses by his quoting of the Koran, should have a conversation with Mike P who evidently is unaware that there are both flaming liberal and fanatical fundamentalist Christians who quote the Bible quite extensively in support of their widely differing views. Mike dispairs of allowing the mod Muslim to live their version of Islam because, what, these hundreds of millions of Moslems haven’t been enlightened by experts on Islam like Jake? Mike might be assuaged by releasing himself from the burden that neither he nor Jake are sufficiently knowledgable about Islam to be either True Islam’s gatekeepers or interlocutors who allow Muslims to do or not do anything.
While I am pleased to be more informed by a deeper look at some segments of Islam, the arrogance of some Christians making pronouncements about a religion with 1.8 billion adherents is breathtaking.
We agree that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life. Seems like putting Him forward, first, and foremost would be a better approach.
David R., a chip off the old block if there is one, puts is far more eruditely than I. I’d bet that his having lived for some time in another culture has helped him gain perspective.
William,
So 1.8 billion deceived people understand the lie they believe better than someone who sees the lie for what it is and speaks truth?
Then I suppose Mormons and Jw’s understand their religion better than any true Christian?
Beliefs built on lies are not vehicles of understanding truth. The Muslims do not comprehend WHO they are worshipping. The very heart of their faith is a lie. Their most powerful god is neither powerful or God. And yet they know better what they believe?
Many nominal Christians believe whatever they are told. They don’t know why, and mst do not care to find out. They are lost and not lead by the Spirit of truth.
All Muslims believe what they are told, most don’t care why, or enough to find out. and they are lost and not led by the Spirit of truth.
Many Muslims are threatened, even here in the USA by their Islamic brothers that if they leave the faith, they will be dealt with harshly. I work at a Federal facility and one Muslim that converted to Christianity was severely beaten in the parking lot by his Muslim ‘friends’.
The Muslim people are in bondage and they are blind to the truth. The truth sets them free, and that truth must be the Gospel first, of course. But along with the Gospel, God has provided us with other truths that serve the Gospel, ands that aid in the breaking of the chains of darkness, or in the exposing of them.
“By the exposing the Koran for what it is, a terrible book of evil, many Muslims will be forced to decide whether to adhere to what it says, and thus become extremist, or seek another path, another ‘God’.”
Agreed.
The missionary I spoke of earlier was saying exactly that – he is saying that as, using your term, “nominal Muslims” discover that people like ISIS are actually living out the dictates of the Koran and therefore the “pure religion of Islam” – they are rejecting it.
He says that’s in part because the deception of Satan that “you are a good person” falls flat on his face when they realize that the religion that they are adhering to is so evil.
All truth can be used by God to expose the lie[s] and pave the way for the Gospel.
To think the Muslim people understand their religion better than a well informed Christian believer is to have the wrong perspective. Its not Christianity versus Islam… its Christianity versus the lies of Satan and the spiritual wickedness in high places.nIslam is just a tool of the evil one.
Now what Muslim is going to understand that as true of his faith?
…none
Suppose a non-Jew wrote a piece saying that a group of Jews who stoned disobedient children, burned witches, executed homosexuals, and adulterers, who conquered countries by killing everything: men, women, children, infants, livestock. Suppose the writer says that this group represents “the true Judaism” and points to the Jewish scripture to support his claim. What would you say?
Bill,
Are you asking me?
Anyone.
I would tell him that to know what true Judaism is, he would need to understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.
Well, I’m not sure he would find that answer satisfying. I guess my question is, to the casual observer, how does my scenario differ than the idea put forth by this article?
Bill,
By casual observer, do you mean a nonbeliever or a believer who doesn’t think much about these things?
Bill Mac, I would answer with a stunningly great answer but according to the logic of some in this comment stream only a Jew would be qualified to define Judaism so I refrain.
Dean,
Do you men an ethnic Jew? Because if you define ‘Jew’ as one who is a child of God, a true Jew, one circumcised in the heart, then you qualify.
I would say that is not the Jews historical character since 600 AD and the author is ignorant.
Lydia: Was the Mosaic law somehow abrogated in 600 AD? (from a Jewish perspective)
Bill, Are you comparing the Law to the Koran or Hadith?
Have you forgotten Jesus Christ came as a Jew? The Muslims know it. Some folk Islam tribes even adopt Him as a prophet to pray to.
I am not sure where you are going with this angle. We are to love and reach out to individual Muslims. agreeing to rewrite history or shame others into ignoring it in order to appeal to a group seems dangerous to me.
I don’t have a problem saying to muslims that they are following a false religion. I’m not sure the benefit of telling muslims that they aren’t really muslims after all. I don’t see how that points them to Christ. You may, as I’ve said, just convince them to conform to the violent jihadist form of Islam that you claim is their true faith.
It’s like going to a synagogue and saying: “you people suck at being Jews, let me tell you about Jesus”. Or like walking into a Hindu gathering and saying: “not only is Hinduism wrong, but you’re doing it wrong besides. Let me tell you what Hinduism really teaches and then if you can spare a few more minutes, I’ll tell you about Jesus”.
I just can’t see this as an evangelistic tool, unless you are trying to convert people to radical Islam.
Bill, I was not aware anyone was using this article as a evangelistic tool. What I see all over government, media and even churches is a rewriting of history and a need to silence any history of Islam that is not first sanitized as peaceful.
We even have people who claim ISIS behavior is not Islam. Is that true or not?
I get a bit disgusted with any shaming or censoring on uncomfortable topics. Just because some idiots might use it in ways we do not like is not a good enough reason.
Lydia: Jared’s comment at 2:28 yesterday.
It will not be long before another group arises out of Islam that will make ISIS look weak in comparison. The News Media has all of this blown out of proportion. ISIS is nothing but a bunch of murdering thugs. They are about as organized as a black Friday sale at Wal-Mart.
There will always be fighting in the middle east, if not one group, then it will be another. They have been fighting since day one, (Cain killed Abel).
I’m not saying these groups don’t get organized at times. When the rubber meets the highway, it boils down to just a group of murdering thugs who will fight themselves if they cannot find anyone else to fight.
That’s how I see it.
Yep – imagine that. Jess views it just like POTUS says to view it.
Just playin Jess – kinda. 😉
Tarheel,
Everything is political with you. I have no idea what the President says about ISIS, and I don’t really care. I draw my own conclusions about the situation, what about you?
I never thought I would say this, but please read parsonsmike’s comments, I believe he is dead on. Mike is one of the very few on Voices that mentions the devil being in the arrangements.
These comments may be helpful. They were written by Dr. Gary Corwin. Dr. Corwin is Associate Editor of the Evangelical Missions Quarterly. He served for many years with Arab World Mission and now with SIM-International. The two sections I pasted come from his article, “Ten Key Things to Know about Islam,” which was published in the October 2004 issue of EMQ.
3. Islam is a political vision as much as a religious one. Muslims believe their destiny is to rule everywhere. The world is divided into two parts, Dar es Salaam and Dar el Harb, the land of peace where Islam rules, and the land of war where the infidel does. While many Muslims don’t think in the more militant ways in which these terms may be understood, most would still believe that Allah will one day bring it about.
4. Radical violent Islam is neither a fringe movement, nor the choice of the majority of Muslims, but it is the logical choice of those most devoted to core beliefs. Unlike Christianity, in which those most zealously devoted to the Master’s teaching are the most loving and least to be feared, those most zealously devoted to the Qur’an’s teachings and the Hadith are overwhelmingly the most violent and unmerciful.
I think that for the most part humans want the same things. I think that Muslim mothers in the ME want the same thing you and I do for our children, to be raised up in peace and happiness. Most people, Muslims included, don’t want to harm anybody.
Do I want the Salem witch trials to be ascribed to my faith? No. Do I want the slaughter of literally millions of Native Americans by so called Christians ascribed to my faith? No. Racist Teachings? No. Slavery? No. So, if i don’t want a false characterization to define my faith, and I don’t want my faith to be defined by the actions of a few, then how is helpful for me to do so to others?
Much of the turmoil and backlash against us in the ME are a result of our policies. Removing leaders and installing leaders. Leaving boots on the ground where we had no business being. Now we have a grave enemy in the Islamic State. Let the ME solve their own problems, because when we get involved more people die.
John,
Are you advocating that we as Christians and we as Southern Baptists take no stand on whether Muslims are lost and enemies of God?
Because no one here on this thread is advocating any political moves or military moves in the ME.
But the ‘good’ moderate Muslims are leaning on the Koran as a way to eternal life. Are you okay with that?
Showing them that the Koran is an evil book could go a long way to bringing them to the Lord.
That’s a far cry from mischaracterizing their faith.
Rather their faith is built on a BIG lie that should be exposed for what it is.
Just like showing the ethnic Jew that he has eft the faith of his forefathers and now has a perversion of truth can help lead him away from the lie his jewishness is telling him.
Mike,
Never said I was okay with that. William had it right when he said, “We agree that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life. Seems like putting Him forward, first, and foremost would be a better approach.” It seems to me that dehumanizing people is not the best way to gain an audience with them.
Yes, perhaps the message of “ISIS is the true Islam” will turn a few people away from Islam, but what if it has the opposite effect? Suppose your arguments are so convincing that these apostate muslims who spend all their time NOT beheading, burning, raping, and pillaging their way around the world repent of their peaceful apostasy and join ISIS?
I don’t think “ISIS is the true Islam” is a necessary prerequisite for “Jesus is the only way of salvation”. Quite the opposite.
Bill, I’m not sure I ever said it was “necessary,” only that it is, or at least could be, helpful for evangelistic reasons.
But at the same time, I think (I know) I can comfortably say that it is “necessary” for someone of a false religion to deny the validity of that religion in order to trust in Jesus.
So with this in mind, yes, it is “necessary” for an Islamic Muslim to recognize the truth about Islam, otherwise he would be either practicing a false, modified version of Islam, or the epitome of it via ISIS. Either way he is outside of salvation in Christ.
What’s so wrong with this?
Jared: Paragraph two, right with you. Paragraph three, having a little difficulty parsing through it. Whether a Muslim is following ISIS Islam, or Sunni, or Shiite, or Friendly-Muslim-Down-The-Street-Who-Makes-Great-Hummus Islam, they are in need of Christ. They need to turn from whichever version of Islam they are following. But I truly don’t see the value of saying to my neighbor when he brings me hummus that he’s an apostate Muslim and then inviting him to bible study.
I finally just read the Wood article in its entirety. I highly recommend others in this conversation do the same, if you have not already done so. It seems to me many of us are talking past each other. Wood does not say ISIS is or represents the most authentic or true Islam. He says it is a “distinct variety of Islam.” My hope, as a follower of Jesus, is that all Muslims, whether adherents to the ISIS variety of Islam or any of the many other varieties of Islam, will come to recognize the false grounding of their faith and turn to Jesus and the truth of the gospel. My hope, as a lover of peace, security, and freedom, in the complex world in which we live, is that fewer and fewer moderate Muslims, in the meantime, will be attracted to the ideology and religious views of ISIS and other violent Islamist groups. I would think it would be advantageous, from this perspective, to not promote binary models that hold out two and only two options to moderate Muslims: 1) convert to a ISIS-friendly variety of Islam; or 2) renounce Islam altogether. I can practically guarantee that many moderate and borderline moderate Muslims, if faced with this dilemma, would opt for option # 1. Isn’t it better (while still, as Christians, proclaiming the exclusive truth claims of the gospel) to defend the validity of other options than these two alone?
The logic of saying, “Don’t say that ISIS represents true Islam because it’s offensive to non-ISIS muslims,” I think, is an unsteady argument. By this logic, a Christian could never say that Mormonism is a manipulated version of Christianity, in fear of offending Mormons everywhere. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses, Branch Davidians, or really any kind of religion. It pulls the rug out from underneath us to have conversations about these kinds of things.
Of course if we–I–were intentionally being insulting, then that would be another question. But the intent of the article has no intention of being insulting.
In my estimation, the main reason why we tend to shy away from saying that ISIS represents true Islam is because it is politically incorrect do so. I don’t think that is a good enough reason. Also, I think there is a biblical mandate to tell the world that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and this involves telling other people of other faiths that their gods are not the one true god.
As I’ve said, this isn’t to insult or bemoan a Muslim. It’s an evangelistic effort to show the inherent wickedness in a false religion in order to clear the way for Jesus.
Excellent article, Jared! I appreciate the thoughtfulness in your reporting.
Jared,
Excellent post you have helped all of us think a little more on this issue. In their minds the ISIS folks are the true representatives of Islam. While it has been argued that we as Christians are not able to decide if this is the fact is strange. One does not have to be of a certain religion to be able to tell if a person is trying to live that religion. All one has to do is objectively compare the believers life with the person they are supposed to be following ( Christ, Mohammed, Buddha etc).
For us as Christians to try to delineate between the various denominations of Islam is impossible, but it is no mystery who is following the example of the prophet.
In my opinion the west’s inability to grasp the essential nature of Islam is what has brought us to the critical state we are in today. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a desire to defeat ISIS, instead there is the desire to contain it.
The good news is ISIS can be defeated, the bad news is we as a nation don’t really want to do that.
Wilbur
The trigger on this for me was the phrase “true Islam” as if Christians with a smattering of knowledge about Islam are able to pronounce such things for all the 1.8b followers of that world religion. At the least one should have a bit of hesitation in employing such absolutes in that context.
Secondarily, I believe Jared in a comment declared his purpose to be evangelistic at least in part. Bill Mac is way ahead of me in putting that in perspective.
Stepping back a bit, I think this is less about Islam or evangelism than it is about Obama. Just a couple more years, brethren, until he hands off to Hilary, then you can really have some fun.
“I’m not sure if you didn’t read the comment thread or what, but you’re doing a phenomenal job of missing my point. ”
Not at all, Chris. I am quite familiar with all the minutiae. I am quite familiar with jerks in Christendom.
I am trying to focus on a much bigger picture.
Gentlemen and ladies:
I do not think you understand what is at stake. We sit here on a blog talking in intellectual and theological terminology about a world religion whose sole goal is to conquer the world and force all people groups to submit to islam. I would suggest that instead of discussion that we actually read islamic scripture and history, keeping our eyes open to the reality that muslims of all stripes have forced on the civilized world.
“We need to reach the world for Christ!”
“Onward, Christian soldiers!”
While I grant the tactics these days (things were not always thus) are different, the goal is not altogether different. Throw theonomists into the mix and we get even closer.
Theonomists only believe in individual freedom for themselves.
“I’m not sure if you didn’t read the comment thread or what, but you’re doing a phenomenal job of missing my point. ”
Not at all, Chris. I am quite familiar with all the minutiae. I am quite familiar with jerks in Christendom.
I am trying to focus on a much bigger picture.
Given some of the expressed attitudes in this stream, and the equating of ISIS with Islam (which seems a bit odd since likely not any in this stream would equate Baptist, or Southern Baptist, or “this form” of Southern Baptist with Christianity), the resulting desire seems to be: “Let’s rout the heathens. We got your apocalypse. We’ll get ISIS, but since that is really Islam, we’ll get the rest in time, too.”
Is this really the path that some want to follow?
Exactly what to do to resolve the ISIS situation is complicated, and smart folks all over the world are thinking this through. Hopefully soon we will have a viable response. While it is not known to us at this point what the response will be, I am confident that some of the generalizations about the enemy (i.e., ISIS) affirmed in this thread will not be a part of a successful plan of action.
“Is this really the path that some want to follow?”
Why is that always the leap?Simply Because some of us think Islam is a violent disaster does not mean we want to kill what you refer to as the heathen. How silly. That is nothing but a convo stopper. I just don’t fall for it anymore. If I don’t agree with you then the leap is made I want to kill innocent people, right?
That also does not mean every single Muslim is violent but it IS a religion that focuses on ‘forced submission’ as its grand theme so you don’t see a lot outspoken rebels on its bloody history, either.
“Exactly what to do to resolve the ISIS situation is complicated, and smart folks all over the world are thinking this through. Hopefully soon we will have a viable response.”
And some not so smart folks like our President, sadly.
Except for the poor folks caught up in this new Islamic state, I actually think this has advantages in the long run. I realize that won’t go over well and sounds really hard core. I wish we could have discussions on these things without the political correctness police.
You are a liberal. What about Muslim women? How do you feel about their status in LEGAL Islam?
Lydia: “Their status” is something we cannot change anymore than they can change the status of Southern Baptists which, except for the clothing, isn’t a lot different. Baptists also believe in “submission” for religious reasons.
As an American who believes in freedom of religion, and any American, you have to let them be as they are. If you try and change that it just isn’t going to happen.
BTW: Is there anything you haven’t done? Every subject you have a personal story which doesn’t seem to jive with experiences others have had when dealing with Muslims. Just sayin.
“Exactly what to do to resolve the ISIS situation is complicated, and smart folks all over the world are thinking this through. Hopefully soon we will have a viable response.”
It’s not that complicated. Find them. Kill them.
That ISIS can be defeated on the battlefield is not really a big issue, of concern, yes, but ISIS munitions and logistical support are very limited compared to what could be brought against it. As the caption suggests, it is not the math that is of prime concern, it is the aftermath. And in this case, a bit of “pre-math,” too.
I am reminded of a group of MBA students given a task to construct a mental map on paper detailing the linkages of a particular organizational issue. Proud were several with the detail of their conceptualizations, as well be given their experience and education to date in their lives. But when compared with others with similar education and more experience, the breadth and depth of the mental maps were markedly greater and potentially more useful.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152572581336809&fref=nf
I guess what I was trying to say earlier is that the issue with every conflict is the problem of the fallen human nature. The ideology is really just a pretext. So to demonize a whole group of people for the actions of a few is really not a good idea. And certainly declaring war on 1.8 billion people is not wise.
“I guess what I was trying to say earlier is that the issue with every conflict is the problem of the fallen human nature.”
this is more than a “conflict”. This is not a disagreement with Mexico over illegals. It is flat out evil pure and simple and innocent lives are at stake.
” The ideology is really just a pretext.”
For what?
” So to demonize a whole group of people for the actions of a few is really not a good idea. And certainly declaring war on 1.8 billion people is not wise.”
Who is demonizing and who is declaring war? We are having a convo concerning the question: Is ISIS more like true Islam?
I could ask you, is Calvinism like Calvinism of Geneva? You would say no. Ok, why? And we have something to point to. What if it were reinstated. Would it be true Christianity? What could we tell folks?
What can Muslims tell us about ISIS that is not really Islam? Could they ever tell us that Islam is NOT forced submission?
What I mean is all wars have a pretext whether it be politics, religion, resources, or protection against threats, but ultimately the cause is the fallen nature of human beings. I am saying that Islam isn’t the problem, any more than Christianity is the problem when Christians kill. People were killing folks by the bushel basket before Islam, and they will today, because they are fallen people.
“People were killing folks by the bushel basket before Islam, and they will today, because they are fallen people.”
Evil Tyrants make it necessary. Unless you are willing to hand your kids over to the Hitler youth and support sending Jews to the ovens. So my uncles were equally “fallen” because they fought against this evil tyrant and even killed people?
You are making a moral equivlancy arguement in this matter. For what purpose, I do not know.
For the purpose of demonstrating that you must look deeper than ideology. It’s easy to say that Islam is the problem, I think that Islam is a pretext, a symptom. And no I am not making a moral equivalency, but you are definitely insinuating that when Christians go to war it’s just but when Muslims do it’s evil.
War comes from mankind’s fallen nature, nowhere else. Have you ever noticed that even the concept of just war calls war a necessary evil? That is not to say that all participants are equally evil. But war is part of the fallen nature.
Lydia: Bringing Calvinism in this discussion makes me want to scream. We know your view, stick to the subject, although some things you are saying here make me want to comment I won’t. We’ve had this discussion before. And I agree with William, David Rogers and Bill.
Here is my big question behind all this:
If we all (i.e. everyone in the US and in the West) could come to an agreement and accept the premise that the version of Islam that ISIS is peddling is really the most authentic version of Islam, and other versions are really faux-Islam, what would be the implications?
Would we:
1) Make Islam illegal?
2) Round up all self-professed Muslims and place them in concentration camps?
3) Declare war against all self-professed Muslim countries?
Why or why not?
If not, what is the real underlying point behind all this discussion?
I guess what I am saying David is that ISIS is a threat regardless of the ideology. We can spend all day talking about whether or not ISIS is a legitimate rendition of Islam in one of its various forms, but in the end, it is simply a military threat and should be dealt with on those terms.
Further, when people villianize folks on the basis of their faith and even call for banning that faith there is nothing more unAmeican than that. We cannot ban religions in America, because if we do, we lose who we are as Americans.
Yes, John, I hear what you are saying, and if I understand you correctly, am basically in agreement.
Anyone else?
I agree. Guess I missed where someone called for a ban.
William, Not saying they did. Just wondering, if they are not, what, then, is the ultimate purpose and implications
of this discussion, from the point of view of those trying to make such a major deal about ISIS being “true Islam”?
David,
Voices is a Political Blog except when it is a Chruch Growth by Business Principles Blog.
You are mistaken to ask serious questions that require concrete answers. In fact, if Dave Miller will forgive me, you are a spoil-sport and likely to bring this rollicking conversation to a screeching halt.
On the plus side; you may give us pause to consider President Obama’s strategy. It is his intention to educate and prosper radical extremists until they are so satisfied with secular humanism and worldly comforts that they stop caring what their prophets have said. It has worked to de-radicalize Christians. It will keep working.
“1) Make Islam illegal?
2) Round up all self-professed Muslims and place them in concentration camps?
3) Declare war against all self-professed Muslim countries?”
None of the above. :o)
The focus has to be on individual value. Individual responsibility. Individual rights. Our Bill of Rights and Sharia Law (in any variation) cannot coexist. (There is a huge tension there for many Muslims here.
As Christians we should be in the forefront of the value of all people.
Our value is inherent in our existence. We can live peaceably with anyone who agrees to these values.
People have a choice to devalue themselves or others.
(I have dealt with one too many Muslim Patriarch refugee who does not want his daughters to learn English! I think they would keep them out of school if it were legal)
I have no objection to what you say here. But I am still wondering what this has to do with insisting that ISIS is “true Islam.”
I think their behavior fits the Koran and preceding Islamic history. After 9/11 I attended a Koran study group. We thought it best to educate ourselves especially because Muslims we knew (professionals) could not contain their glee over the Twin Towers. This confused people who had known them for years as peaceful types.
The scariest part was that educated Westernized Muslims living in the West were buying into it all. Most came from a cultural Muslim background.
What would true Islam look like according to the Koran? What would True Christianity look like according to the NT?
“What would True Islam look like according to the Koran? What would True Christianity look like according to the NT?”
And that, Lydia, speaks volumes. Genuine Christians should indeed believe and act with NT mission … Islam certainly challenges their adherents to follow sacred texts. In addition to teachings regarding “infidels” in the Koran, Islam’s prophetic traditions contained in the Hadith should also concern Christians. While we may brand those who are extremely serious in both Christian and Islamic faiths as “radical”, they are perhaps closer to core belief and practice than we want to believe. A Christian worldview with an eye to what is unfolding in the Middle East is the call of the day, lest we be caught unaware.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said the following on today’s “CBS This Morning” show:
“The reality is that Al-Qaeda and ISIS believe they are religious warriors. They believe that they are fighting on behalf of their religion for their religion. It’s not rhetoric on their part. They really believe it.”
I suppose the same can be said about the military campaigns of The Crusades during the Middle Ages. But what is unfolding in The Middle East has fallen upon us who live in the 21st century. At some point in human history, on the divine timetable, there will be a generation who witnesses events leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. It could be ours. These are days to carefully measure what is going on in the world through the filter of Scripture. Don’t let the White House govern your thinking in this regard.
9/11 a Muslim’s perspective:
Those Muslims that live in our area were deeply saddened and shocked at 9/11. They still are.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/09/11/911-a-muslim-americans-perspective/
The Muslim women I have worked with wear the covering on their head, pants, long sleeved shirts, speak perfect English, yet come from differing areas of the Middle East. Some wear long dresses.
After the bombing in Boston, they were threatened by people so badly we had to escort some from the store in which I worked at the time. Seemed we were the threat and not them.
David,
I see what you are driving at. I don’t think we should do 1, 2 or 3. Instead our nation should have a coherent strategy of how to soundly defeat ISIS. Our nation’s strategy should not be confused with our strategy to win Muslims of all denominations to Christ.
There is a clear Biblical distinction of the church and states role in the world ( which I think is often confused). The purpose of the church is the great commission. From our perspective whether or not ISIS is genuinely close to pure Islam is a mote point since our objective is the same if it is or isn’t. In my opinion ISIS is closer to pure Islam than the moderate Islam we are associated with in the USA.
The purpose of state is another matter. The state has a clear mandate to destroy ISIS. This could be done but it will not be any time soon. No western nation or alliance of nations has the national will to do it. ISIS will continue to gain momentum and expand its territory.
Wilbur
PS: David I am not saying that you are confused about any of this, just commenting on the 1,2 and 3 in your post.
Wilbur,
Thanks for your insightful comment. Yes, indeed, I do believe that confusion over the roles of the state and the church is behind a lot of the differences in perspective being expressed in this discussion.
I do not think it is the role of the state to make theological arguments either in favor of Islam or against it, or in favor of or against Christianity. As Christians, that is our role.
Though I have hesitated to say it, knowing the emotional responses it provokes, I think once again, William Thornton is pretty much on target here when he suggests the underlying issue for some (I don’t think this is the case for all) is how to best discredit Obama.
In order to be clear where I am coming from, I am NOT a supporter of Obama. I did not vote for him. And I would never vote for him. If he were the only candidate, I would choose not to vote. Yet, I think he takes a lot of flack from people who think he can do no right, and are predisposed to find an angle to criticize him, no matter what he does.
I don’t think it is the role of the Chief of State to make apologetic arguments in favor of one religion or against another. It is rather his role to defend a more universally accepted set of American values, something like a sort of American civil religion. I don’t think Obama always does this flawlessly, but I do think he generally does a fairly admirable job of trying to walk this fine line.
Though he grew up with some Muslim influence, the best evidence seems to confirm he is not a Muslim. He is, as best I can tell, a very liberal “Christian,” who believes in a certain brand of universalism, and who also believes in freedom of religion and equal rights for those of all religions. Because he, as a professing Christian, does not take a specifically pro-Christian public stand, a lot of Christians interpret that as anti-Christian and pro-Islam.
I also think he is convinced that the worst thing the US could do strategically is to make moderate Muslims around the world believe the US and the West are in a war against Islam at large, and not just a war against terrorism, whatever religious garb it happens to wear. At this point, I believe he is right.
Yes, it is helpful, in the ideological war, to understand the ideological and religious argument that drive the enemy to behave as they behave. But it is not up to the US government to counter with specifically religious arguments. That is why, on a state level, it makes more sense to be opposed to extremism and terrorism, whatever label it operates under, than to be opposed to Islam, per se.
Undoubtedly, foreign policy and military strategy are complicated. There have always been more “hawkish” approaches and more “doveish” approaches. And there are many ins and outs I admittedly do not have a clue about, and as a result think should be left to a certain degree to the experts.
Some people say we should just go in and wipe out ISIS and everyone associated with it. Lots of luck with that.
I am not a pacifist, in the sense of being opposed to military action in general. But I do believe in Just War theory, and I do believe military actions should be undertaken with every reasonable precaution to not harm innocent people in the process. And there must be a reasonable hope of accomplishing the ultimate objective they set out to accomplish.
If the approach the US takes to this crisis only serves in the end to enrage moderate and borderline-moderate Muslims, and cause them to side with the terrorists, I believe we are strategically shooting ourselves in the foot.
I believe one of the strategies of ISIS is to try to exacerbate the already existing tension between the Ideological Right in the US and the Obama Administration over the way they are handling this crisis.
Does this mean we should give the Obama Administration carte blanche to handle this however they please? No, I don’t think so. But I do think that even though we may not like Obama’s policies on many different issues, our government needs the support of its people right now in order to carry out a very complicated and delicate operation in the Middle East, and that the constant barrage of criticism—and especially un-nuanced criticism, as is often the case—is ultimately unhelpful.
I agree David Rogers.
Well said, David. Comprehensively well said.
Just think: If a conspiracy ruled the world, and it caused the wars either directly or by manipulation of people (the most likely), what would you all say. There was a story on the old Star Trek series in which an evil life form brought Klingons and humans on a ship and caused them to become enraged and kill one another. Then it would bring them back to life to repeat the process. It drew its sustenance from the rage, and Satan and self and sin draw their power from the rage between people over things that are really secondary at best until they make the killing of one another primary, bringing about a sort of self-justification. In World War I, that first Christmas of the Great War to end all wars, the Germans and the British (and I suppose the other allies) met in no man’s land to sing Christmas Carols. I pray for a Third Great Awakening, one that reaches every soul on earth for a thousand generations and all of those on unnumbered planets with innumerable populaces. After all, Jesus said His angels would gather the elect from one end of THE (in the original) heaven to the other (Mt.24:31), and all of this from Sovereign, Irresistible, Unconditional Love. Dr. King said unconditional love would win in the end, and who can defeat that which has no conditions to its care for rebels?
David R.
Thanks for your reasoned and well thought out points on this issue – it has brought on some more thinking and provoked me to more study on this matter. Thanks again.
I do think that Regardless of whether ISIS is “true Islam” that Lydia’s point here is an absolutely true statement.:
“Our Bill of Rights and Sharia Law (in any variation) cannot coexist.”
I would add that any form of civilized and peaceful government based in individual freedom would find that same inability to coexist.
ISIS is not alone in the Islamic religion wishing to bring about Sharia Law worldwide – would you think there are very many Muslim clerics anywhere who don’t hold and teach that that as a goal?
Regardless – those are political and militaristic issues – our true motive and agenda in this world is to preach and proclaim the gospel – as it is the only cure for the falleness of man.
The false religion of Islam is simply one particularly visible demonstration of mankinds need for true salvation – that only comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
“Jesus is the answer for the world today, above Him there’s no other – Jesus is the way.”
Anything that is against the law of our land cannot exist.
It seems in talking with those Muslims who have migrated here, that there are differing views and practices of Islam in differing parts of the world. They differ from one nation, region to another.
They tell me tensions occur when they settle in a community here in America, where people have a one dimensional view of Islam or are unfamiliar with Islam which they have the opinion that most of America fits that description.
According to historians on PBS, 10 to 15 percent of Africans brought over for slavery were Muslims. They were forced to convert to Christianity.
During the 1930s and 40s, Arab immigrants began to establish communities and build mosques. African-American Muslims had already built their own mosques, and by 1952 there was more than 1,000 in North America.
After a 30 years of excluding most immigrants, the United States flung open its doors again in 1952 and an entirely new group of Muslims came from places such as Palestine (many had come in 1948 after the establishment of Israel), Iraq, and Egypt. The 1960s saw waves of South-east Asian Muslims also making their way to America. Muslims also came from Africa, Asia and even Latin America.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/islam-in-america/
Put the shoe on another foot Debbie.
Were you a Christian living now in Syria, Iraq, or Libya, might you not also be willing to express to your neighbors your sadness and horror over the loss of innocent life as a byproduct of war?
Or would you be willing to stand up on a soapbox in such a scenario when asked or observed by your neighbors and say “Serves you buggers right”.
Most would keep their mouths shut or at least express empathy until the day the neighbors who share their beliefs outnumber those who don’t.
Scott: As a Christian and as who I am, I would never say “Serves you buggers right”. I would genuinely be sad. Even if I lived in Iraq etc. . Note the link to Samaritans purse.
I personally have known and worked with Muslim men and women. There were none among those who I worked with or who own businesses here who were glad for 9/11. None were hostile to Americans. They came here to enjoy the same freedoms we do.
As I said, the store where I worked escorted customers out because they were threatening Muslims after the Boston bombing, not the other way around. Muslims were not threatening anyone.
I would like to see Isis stopped. Isis, not Muslims in general. I would love to see Muslims and many lost people come to Christ, not wiped out. Without Christ the alternative in death is hell. That too makes me very sad.
I assume most of us here would hold to a historical/grammatical hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
If muslims use the same hermeneutic to the koran, sira and haddith, you get ISIS. Islam has spread primarily through conquest and subjugation from its very beginnings.
That being said, that does not give us leave to target all those who claim to be muslim, we should live in peace with those we can.
This must be clear, you cannot live in peace with Al Queda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. They do not wish to live in peace. Pray for them, pray for a Saul to come from their midst. But, in the meantime, it is foolish and dangerous to not try to defeat them by use of force.
Bingo? Muslim fundamentalism goes to murderous extremes based on strict literal interpretation of Koran. Christian fundamentalism, based on strict literal interpretation of The Bible, while a pain in the backside in extreme manifestations, generally does not call for the severing of heads over refusal to convert or in the event of insults/cartoons containing depictions of Jesus.
Those that would counter by pointing to the Old Testament record of “Herem” “cherem” “the ban” should also remember that the purpose of God was not immediately “evangelistic” when He sent the children of Israel in.
” … the purpose of God was not immediately “evangelistic” when He sent the children of Israel in.”
Unfortunately, the children of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants of the land as commanded … and they are still reaping the results of that bad choice.
While we may desire God to nuke radical Islam, I am reminded of an exchange between Paul and Timothy in 2 Timothy 3-4 following Paul’s exhortation “There will be terrible times in the last days.” Essentially, Timothy inquired what he should do if he lived to see those events unfold … Paul counseled him to “do the work of an evangelist.” However, is it possible that Al-Qaeda and ISIS have taken on a demonic dimension in which they cannot hear the Gospel?
My bets with Max on “not being able to hear”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ntUae8Q-Vo
This is an interesting history lesson concerning Radical Islam by Jay Smith. You have to cut through some arrogance but the content is worth it.
Of course, we all would hope that the members of ISIS would get saved. But, things being what they are, the leaders of the nations of our world need to do something to wipe this bunch of murderous thugs off the face of the planet. They need to be stopped.
David
” … the leaders of the nations of our world need to do something …”
With their numbers totaling 1.6 billion and enough combined military might to put a big hammer down, the Muslim nations themselves could stop this band of radicals without Western intervention … “if” they really wanted to.
David: I agree, Isis needs to be stopped. But I don’t agree that all Muslims are in the same category as Isis. That is more fear mongering and dare I say hatred than actuality.
Debbie,
First of all, you are constantly trying to find something bad in what I write….always. And, you always find the worst possible way to read what I write.
Secondly, I said nothing…..absolutely NOTHING about ALL Muslims. Did I?
Thirdly, there is not hatred on my part. Thus, you are just out and out misjudging the intent of what I actually wrote.
Fourthly, I’m not surprised by your answer to me, since I’ve come to expect such things from you, and from a few others in this blog.
Again, I will say…..ISIS needs to be wiped off the face of the planet. They need to be stopped, as does Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, and some of the other radical, mean, murdering, Muslim groups, which care nothing for human life.
David
David: I did not intend to imply that you meant all Muslims. My apologies if that was the implication. I think I said that more for clarification than that you implied this. I agree with your comment.
I will say this, though, Debbie, and you can munch and chew on it, and spit it out however you wish. I do believe that the Koran teaches Muslims to be violent. It teaches them to kill all infidels. It is a book that encourages murder.
Now, not all Muslims follow the clear teaching of their “Bible,” thankfully. Some Muslims are Muslims in name only…a cultural thing….and, they are peaceful people. BUT, IF they actually followed the teachings of the Koran, then they would kill anyone, who refuses to convert to Islam.
David
Again, I will say…..ISIS needs to be wiped off the face of the planet. They need to be stopped, as does Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, and some of the other radical, mean, murdering, Muslim groups, which care nothing for human life.
Absolutely agree. Join one of these groups voluntarily, and in my opinion you have forfeited your right to continue breathing.
They are certainly not presently all in the category of ISIS Debbie. But the inherent theological bent of Islam and its commonly accepted sources of religious authority might tend to carry more weight with them than The Bible when push comes to shove.
Fear can be a good instinct in the right circumstances.
From Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2015/february/nation-of-suspect-thy-neighbor.html
Consider the source.
I saw a status update on my Facebook this morning asking the question: Can a good Muslim be a good American? The answer given on FB was, no, for a variety of reasons, all centered around the idea that a Muslim’s first allegiance is (or ought to be) toward Allah. To some degree, I understand this line of reasoning and concede that it makes sense—to some degree. The problem for me, however, is, don’t we as Christians (or shouldn’t we) basically say the same thing with regard to our ultimate allegiance to God?
Now I know what many of you are thinking at this point: “Yeah, but their God tells them to take over the world, and, if necessary, use violence to do it” (or something sort of like that).
That got me to thinking. Doesn’t our God also tell us to “take over the world”? And do you really have to believe Allah wants you to use violence in order to be a good Muslim?
As Christians, I think we in different camps take different approaches to these questions, similar (but not just like) the way Muslims in different camps take different approaches to these same questions.
I thought about making a whole post about this. But since my ideas on this are still pretty much half-baked, I don’t really want to put my name beside them quite that prominently yet.
Why not just keep them to myself, then? Because I am really interested in having a few theologically astute folks (like many of you who may read this) think through these ideas with me. Fair enough? I would love the input any of you might be able to provide.
As Christians, we can divide our views on these questions along a spectrum of different approaches, something like the following:
1. Liberationists. Though most of us here would not regard this as a legitimate Christian view, it is one that has had wide acceptation and influence, and one that many outsiders are aware of when they look at the Christian world at large. Some liberationists advocate violence as a means to advancing what they understand to be the kingdom of God in the world, a kingdom of justice and equity for the poor and disenfranchised. Other liberationists don’t advocate violence, per se, but envision the same basic outcome, through activist though less violent means.
2. Reconstructionists/Theonomists/Dominion Theology Advocates. Though these generally lean more to right-wing politics and right-wing theology, as opposed to the leftist leanings of the Liberationists, I think there are some similarities in their approaches. They both envision a world in which principles of justice and righteousness, as they understand them, hold sway in the present world, and believe that it is the job of Christians to help bring this state of things into being, whether little by little in different spheres of cultural and political influence or by other means.
3. Spiritual Warfare Charismatics. This group takes a similar approach to the Reconstructionists, but sees the task of introducing the Kingdom of God in this world primarily from the perspective of spiritual warfare. They tend to place a lot of emphasis on territorial spirits, “binding the strong man,” etc. A popular iteration of this approach is the “Seven Mountains of Culture” paradigm.
4. “Every Square Inch” Kuyperians. Abraham Kuyper is well-known for his statement “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” Those who fall into this category believe, along a similar line to that of the Reconstructionists, that as Christians we should seek to make our influence felt in the various spheres of culture. As I understand it, this view is similar to Niebuhr’s “Christ Transforms Culture” approach. While Kuyperians, as I understand it, all eschew violence, and advocate democracy, they still envision a world, on this side of Christ’s return, that is more and more impacted by the values of the Kingdom of God (some of you who have studied this more than I can help me delineate more clearly here the differences between Reconstructionism and Kuyperianism).
5. Two-Kingdom proponents. This is the view that in this present age in which we live, we as Christians are called to live our lives in two different spheres: the sphere of the eternal and the spiritual, and the sphere of the earthly and political. There is a tension between the two. Many of the problems we face in this world are due to our tendency to confuse and conflate these different spheres, and to seek to introduce the methods and values of the eternal Kingdom in an inappropriate and premature manner into the present world order. For Two-Kingdom proponents, as I understand it, we as Christians are called to live out our specifically Christian commitments in our personal lives and to call others to accept the gospel, yield their hearts and will to Christ, and live out their discipleship in the context of the church, in preparation for a coming Kingdom. We are also called to be responsible citizens in this present world, but the principles that guide us in this calling have more to do with natural law and peaceful coexistence with those who don’t accept our spiritual values than with introducing the Kingdom of God ahead of time into the political and cultural structures around us.
6. Liberal “Conform-to Culture” Christians. This is the idea of “live and let live.” Be nice. Be kind. But don’t rock your world. And don’t take all this hocus pocus about a coming Kingdom too seriously. We are called to live in peace and brotherhood with everyone around us right now. And don’t cramp anyone’s style. That is the main thing.
7. Radical Anabaptists. This is the view that as Christians we are called to be separate from this world and not sully ourselves with involvement in worldly endeavors such as politics, art, entertainment, science, finance, etc. The extreme application of this is found in groups like the Amish, but there are other less extreme versions. This is basically what Niebuhr called the “Christ Against Culture” approach.
Okay, I know some of you will object to my representation of some of these views. Correct me where I am wrong. Like I said, these ideas are still half-baked. Help me out here. Also, if there are other important approaches I need to add to this list, help me with this, too.
And now for my application. Is it not true that, just as we as Christians take different approaches to these issues, different groups of Muslims take different approaches as well? I would even be willing to bet there are different groups of Muslims that are more or less the counterpart to each of the above-stated Christian views. ISIS and their ilk are sort of the radical Liberationist/Reconstructionists of Islam (Liberationist in their advocacy of force and violence, Reconstructionist in their more fundamentalist approach to their holy book). Like most Christians, Muslims generally envision a future world in which the will of God (Allah) is done, injustice is done away with, and sin and unrighteousness is finally overcome. One’s view of eschatology (i.e. premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial, etc.) plays into all of this as well.
My personal view is more along the line of the Two-Kingdom approach, with some Anabaptist leanings thrown into the mix. I am generally premillennial, though not dogmatically either dispensational or post-trib. I am open on this. I believe that in the present age, especially in the American society in which we live, religious liberty is a gift from God, and that we should defend the rights of everyone to believe as they choose to believe, and to practice their religion as they choose to practice it, just as long as this practice does not intrude into the rights of others or impose values on others that they do not voluntarily accept (i.e. Sharia law, etc.).
I lay out more specifics of my approach in these two posts:
https://sbcvoices.com/eschatology-and-religious-liberty/
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/03/15/christ-the-faithful-suffering-servant-in-the-midst-of-culture/
Your thoughts?
David,
I highly recommend Leonard Verduin’s “Anatomy of a Hybrid” which addresses the issue of Christians living in a composite society. It is a good thing, btw. Wish more Christians understood that. America was to be the great composite society experiement. Man can govern himself and live peacably with others who believe different things about God or don’t even believe in God.
I say we are to be “light of the world” not the darkness of the world. One thing we do as believers in a free society is we discuss cultic groups who totally misrepresent Jesus and use Him for political gain, fame gain or even monetary gain. We call them out and try to persude people –not force them. People will know when they have met and gotten to know a real follower of Christ. While Christians are not doormats, they love justice, mercy, compassion, etc, etc.
Islam means submission as in force. If you have studied the Koran, can you tell me how a devout Muslim would behave and live in this world?
Jay Smith, the Islamic Christian Scholar makes a pretty good case that ISIS represents true Islam. Just ignore the venue, try not to get side tracked with the polemic and listen to the content then do your own homework by reading the Koran and taking a good look at history.
The ISIS Muslims are determined to bring every Muslim (even if in name only) into the fold by force if need be. We need to protect them, too. But let us not be ignorant about the goals of true Islam and dismiss them as political posturing as our President has.
Is Radical Islam true Islam?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ntUae8Q-Vo
Muslims in general do not believe themselves to be Isis. Isn’t it important that they believe they are not Isis or have any ties to or condone Isis? I believe it is.
Lydia: I read what you write and I cringe. I could be wrong but it just seems as if you see danger where there is none.
I agree David. I think that is where I am coming from and not necessarily because of scripture, but this is how I feel. As an American, I believe that everyone should be able to worship as they believe in peace etc. In fact I believe word for word what you have said.
Muslims in general may not describe or see themselves as ISIS but I do believe in general that they approve and would prefer Sharia Law.
Lydia,
Just finished listening to the Jay Smith talk. Pretty interesting. In a lot of ways, what he says is not, as I understand it, incompatible with what I am saying (not that I am in any way an expert, or have anywhere close to the knowledge he has on Islam). As he says, it is up to the government and the military to defeat ISIS on a military level. But it is up to us as Christians, with the gospel, to defeat Islam, on an ideological level.
I agree with him that there is a place, in sharing Christ with Muslims, for polemics and apologetics. But I also believe there is still an important place for friendship evangelism. And one of our strongest apologetic strategies is showing how the way of Christ is different (and superior) to the way of Muhammad and of Islam. It is not the way of coercion. It is the way of freedom. Interesting, also, to hear Jay Smith say that he personally is a pacifist. And that he thinks Jesus would condemn the Crusades.
DAvid, I agree with most of it except I am not a pacifist in the same way he is as a Mennonite. I do think we (as government of the people) should defend the innocent with a sword if need be.
I am not as keen concerning friendship evangelism. I do have Muslim friends and colleagues so I hope you will try and understand this is not an “either/or” convo. The last thing I would want them to think is that my love for Christ and others does NOT define me.
My early experiences as a teen with Muslims taught me a huge lesson about “friendship evangelism” during the Iranian Revolution. They are a very hospitable people and we often misread and misunderstand that especially in such an intensive shame/honor culture. I think Western Muslims have more respect for us when we are upfront. But good manners and expressions of love are always required no matter what! :o)
And, I am very ashamed of “Christianity’s” bloody history. Personally, I would call it the “state” Crusades using Jesus as cover.
An interesting note: How many books can you find on the Crusades? Hundreds. How many will you find on the Islamic conquest and occupation from Spain to India? Only a few. Interesting, eh?
Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” also good.
“Is it not true that, just as we as Christians take different approaches to these issues, different groups of Muslims take different approaches as well?”
Great post-within-the-post, Brother Rogers! Your thoughts are more than half-baked! At first read, my mind drifted toward the foundation which supports the architecture of Christian vs. Muslim, regardless of the theological spectrum of approaches to belief and practice within each religion.
What is the primary driver of these faiths?
Within Christianity, most of us would reply fulfillment of “The Great Commission.” Christians are challenged to follow the instruction of the resurrected Jesus to spread His teachings to all the nations of the world through personal and corporate ministry, missionary work, and evangelism. These are basic tenets of Christian theology, whether you call yourself Baptist, Pentecostal, or Bapti-costal! Throughout Christianity, divisions have been tolerated … “if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:38-39).
Within Islam, the driver appears to be the fulfillment of “The Prophetic Methodology” (a term used in The Atlantic article cited by Jared in his post). The end-time prophecies of Muhammad are planted in the Islamic mind through the Koran and Hadith in which jihad and world-wide submission to Islam go hand-in-hand. Could it be that the reason Muslim nations of the world refuse to contain radical Islam is that they view the core belief and practices of jihadists in support of the Prophetic Methodology and that to take a position against it would be to find yourself fighting against Allah? Granted, many Muslim leaders have condemned the tactics of ISIS … but have not brought their power against it.
While Christians would like to see the whole world submit to Christ (someday, every knee will bow), we bear the precious Gospel message in love. Christianity is the peaceful religion. Christ was a man of peace … Muhammad was a man of war.
Lydia’s question “Is Radical Islam true Islam?” has been set before the world to address. However the nations answer that question could very well determine our destiny.
David,
Would you really draw the line at Sharia? And how would you draw the line at that point?
wilbur
There should be one law of the land that doesn’t discriminate on the basis of religion. Not sure if you are referring to something more specific. If so, please clarify, and I’ll try to answer more specifically.
David,
Thank you, my question was based on something you wrote that assumed that peaceful coexistence with Islam was possible. You answer suggests that there is a point where you would personally take a stand. It is good to know that if Islam reaches its goals here that you would oppose it.
wilbur
Like you I hold to a little bit of two kingdoms with a little bit of Anabaptist thrown in.
First, I believe that this present age is evil and it is in a state of decay morally. (Luke 18:8; Gal. 1:4; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 4:1-4)Because of the corruption of man, I hold no hope that any lasting solutions can be found through political means.
Second, I think that many Baptists don’t understand that we are not OT Israel. Most revival messages, are centered on OT passages like 2 Chron. 2:14 and are misapplied to us.
Third, I think that we as salt and light can have a positive impact on those around us. Our first priority is to the Gospel, but we are also called on to do good to all, live peaceably with all, and to help the poor. I guess what I am saying that the Gospel not only improves ones future but can also help people in this life.
Fourth, I do not believe that we will ever see another spiritual awakening in America. I believe that Christ Himself will have to return before our societal ills are fixed.
Question:
Arguments being made here that most Muslims are not ISIS/Al Qaeda/Muslim brotherhood/Boka Haram/Hamas/etc and are not supportive of thier agenda – well let’s say that’s true – (and to some degree I think it likely is) why isn’t the majority shouting down the minority – or even joining in efforts to silence them?
Tarheel,
Interesting comment…..and, amen!
David
Does thier silence and refusal to join efforts to end “the extremists” terrorism not lend itself to some level of culpability?
These are serious questions – I’m not trying to be overly provocative.
I would say that the vast majority of folks fighting against ISIS are Muslims themselves.
I too have asked why moderate Muslims are not decrying the actions ISIS and these other groups. But to be fair, if any of you have traveled outside the country, you know that our American media is incredibly insular. Watch TV in a different country and you will be amazed at what is being reported that will never get headlines in the US.
Give us some ideas. I have only seen reporting when in Europe which is basically, “America is at it again” type of presentation. And I do understand that attitude to a certain extent. But I often think of Colin Powell telling the UN (?) that all America asked Europe for was a place to bury their dead.
No, I’m not talking about what the news is saying about America. What I mean is that the news I’ve seen (most of my travel has been in Asia) is much more globally focused, and not just about the country that I’m in. Much more so than in the US.
“Does thier silence and refusal to join efforts to end “the extremists” terrorism not lend itself to some level of culpability? ”
Yes. But many are simply afraid because of extremist in their own religion or they tend to stick in groups and people follow their group.
Dearborn was a lesson for us all but it has been so twisted by the media I fear we cannot now learn from it.
Our bigger question is why people come here (or why do they stay) if they do not agree with our Constitition/ Bill of Rights? One reason is because even the average American does not know the Bill of Rights. Nor do they care.
There have been instances of Muslims decrying ISIS, but in what way do you think this should be done? There is no Muslim spokesman in America, just a lot of individual people and individual religious leaders, very few (or any?) of whom have a national platform. So how would you even know if they did speak out?
I suspect there has been widespread condemnation of ISIS among Muslims and we just don’t know it because how would we? And whenever such condemnation does get reported, it’s buried among a pile of other news.
From a quick google search, took about 15 seconds to find numerous examples of Muslims condemning ISIS:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html
“I suspect there has been widespread condemnation of ISIS among Muslims and we just don’t know it because how would we?”
Social media. Especially with young Muslims in the West who are adept at social media. It would definitely get out and go viral. I am not saying there are NO Muslims decrying the violence.
Why would it definitely go viral? As it is, I *have* seen Muslim tweets condemning ISIS, but there’s no reason to expect them to go viral. Besides, viral tweets are a weird way to gauge response.
I agree social media can be weird. It is what it is. Muslims are aware of hashtag activism and other social media outlets :o)
People who are actively engaged in being against something….make it known and try to garner mass support. That is the way it works.
Look at all the blogs that are dedicated to spiritual abuse in Christendom.
There is a reason young Muslims are not going that route in droves. What is it?
Here’s another example from today’s news: three London girls head to Syria to join ISIS. It is thought they may have been recruited by a Scottish girl who went a couple of years ago. The Scottish girl’s (Muslim) family had a few pointed words:
“In a statement released through their lawyer Aamer Anwar, the Mahmood family said they were ‘full of horror and anger that their daughter may have had a role to play in the recruitment of these young girls to ISIS’. They also sent a message to Aqsa: ‘You are a disgrace to your family and the people of Scotland, your actions are a perverted and evil distortion of Islam.'”
http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-31569808
Another good one:
“More than 1000 Muslims formed a human shield around Oslo’s synagogue on Saturday, offering symbolic protection for the city’s Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark last weekend.”
http://news.yahoo.com/norwegian-muslims-form-human-ring-around-oslo-synagogue-102527616.html
Did you shout down the bad behavior of various “Christians” when they performed for public recognition? I know that I did not. Where would I shout? If the news interviewed me, I would have “shouted” but they did not.
I don’t think it is fair to condemn the “average” Muslim. You have many (if you look) prominent Muslims who do shout and they almost always shout that ISIS does not represent them and should not be doing what ISIS is doing.
I feel that Mr. Obama’s comments on ISIS are models of how to reduce the recruiting of “radicalized” people into the ISIS ranks. If a Muslim who was “on the fence” read this thread, I am concerned that it might push them to jump toward the jihad side.
One reason many may be talking past each other on this thread is that any mention that ISIS is true Islam makes some jump to the conclusion that those making that claim (which can be proven by the Koran) want all Muslims wiped out or something like that. That is simply a convo stopper. It is simply away to appear pious instead of having a conversation about what is true Islam according to their holy book.
UBL lamented several times that most Muslims do not know the Koran. He saw that as making his job harder. Does anyone remember that?
Is there anyone here who wants to proclaim Islam as a religion of peace? There is no other way to understand that but ignorance of what the Koran and even the Hadith teaches. And sadly, that is what many Muslims and even Christians believe. And it is true there are many peaceful Muslims living among us and we must protect them, too. .
So what happens when billions of Muslims decide to be devout? That is the goal. England already allows forms of Sharia law for Muslims. Why? Because they think it is fair? There are going to be tough questions for us to consider in the future and we best start considering them now. And the best way to do that is to become educated about what their book teaches.
So what to do? Our president seems to think ISIS recruits need job training programs. That is his ignorance! He is so over his head it is not funny. He is a president who bows to Saudi dictators, no less. He does not understand that this devotion to true Islam attracts the educated and middle class Muslims? ISIS is even recruiting women to be a part of this new Islamic state to propagate more children. Everyone seems to be afraid to name the elephant in the room: True Islam. Even peaceful Muslims need to understand true Islam. They do not have Jesus Christ to bring them back to sanity.
Those who are encouraging people to study and learn what true Islam is according to their own book are much like Winston Churchill warning about Germany. He was made fun of and accused of being a war monger. Appeasers are those who are eaten by the crocodile last.
I am very glad most Muslims do not follow the Koran. But how can you tell them that?
Lydia,
As conservative Evangelicals, we generally believe that a hermeneutically sound interpretation of our book, the Bible, is the best gauge for determining who is an authentic (or good) Christian, and who is not. At least, it is one of the key factors. I, too, believe that. But many people around the world, both professing Christians and non-Christians, do not believe that is the best gauge. I think they are wrong. But nevertheless, their ideas are powerful ideas that hold a lot of sway over public global opinion. And here and there, they probably have a few valid points to make as well. For instance, can we truly call those “Christian” who profess to believe the Bible literally but do not in their personal lives follow the ethic of love set out by Jesus? I digress…
In any case, while there are undoubtedly some Muslims who believe the best way to determine who is a “true Muslim” is by looking at who believes and follows most closely the line of thinking laid out in the Qur’an, there are others who don’t take such a literalist approach, and who still believe they are “good Muslims.”
Also, Qur’anic hermeneutics, just like biblical hermeneutics, is sometimes tricky. Some people may argue (and some actually do) that the most literal interpretation of the Bible is one that advocates the genocide of those who don’t follow the laws of God and who oppose the plans of God for the people of God to inherit the land He has promised them. We say, in answer to this, that you have to read the OT with NT eyes to really understand God’s message to us today as Christians. Might it be that many Muslims also say there are different ways to read and interpret the Qur’an, and just because one way is the most “literal” way to read it does not necessarily make it the most correct one?
In the end, I as a Christian don’t think any group of Muslims is right, because I think their book and their religion is false from the get-go. But I must admit that there are different ways of determining who is the most authentic devotee of any particular religion or religious worldview.
As I have said before, I agree that there is currently a battle going on for the soul of Islam. In a similar way, I believe, there is a long-standing battle going on for the soul of Christianity. I also believe it is generally up to Muslims themselves to determine what is “true Islam.” Hopefully, there will not be a big wave in the near future who decide that “true Islam” is the view espoused by ISIS, and as a result decide to return to the roots of their religion and become more devoted followers of “true Islam.” I would much prefer they remain convinced that their “watered-down” version of Islam is a legitimate way to practice their faith.
And what I would really prefer is they renounce Islam in all its forms and come to Christ. But I don’t think coercion or squelching of religious liberty is the way to see this accomplished.
David, I think I understand what you are trying to say. I will just add that the Koran encourages/insists upon violence toward those who won’t convert. There is the “Mohammad has no power” part of the Koran and then the “Mohammed now has power” part.
As far as religious freedom goes, of course I agree with you, unless the religion insists upon enforcing their own laws here…. such as Sharia. Then we have a problem. Because Sharia cannot coexist with our Bill of Rights.
Just some things to consider. And I will again say that I am pleased most Muslims are not following the Koran.
Granted, there are no places in the US implementing Sharia, not even Dearborn, despite lots of squawking to the contrary.
Right Chris. There has been a lot of story stretching among Evangelicals. Even the stories of Dearborn are stretched beyond truth. Here is just one example debunked by Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp
“Because Sharia cannot coexist with our Bill of Rights”
Not consistently. And that’s the problem. It’s a flat out contradiction. Then if one is to read the Koran, contradictions are no problem. There must be a consistent thread throughout or it becomes irrational. Rational people can’t relate to contradictory positions. As a Christian can’t rationally deny the bible and remain a CONSISTENT Christian.
Lydia: The charge of piousness is a conversation stopper. It’s an easy argument but untrue. Fact is that other religions including Muslims are people too, and having them as friends or liking them, caring about them is not about piousness as much as it is not wanting history to repeat itself. As has been mentioned there have been threats to them by Americans, bad treatment, and treatment much like the black people suffered before. That is my concern and I tend to stand for and want to protect them.
That is all it is. I see false fear being spoken of and it’s simply that, false fear with no facts that I can see, except the opinion of others who are spreading false fear.
That should be those of other religions.
If I am wrong, I am wrong. But as an American who does believe in the Bill of Rights, who knows that Muslims also believe in the Bill of Rights, and knows, can quote them, better than most Americans, don’t be fooled by those who espouse doom and gloom, they are just as much American as you or I, they believe in America which is why they are here, and should be treated equally in every way as they are entitled to that.
Also, Qur’anic hermeneutics, just like biblical hermeneutics, is sometimes tricky.
My thoughts exactly. Just as there are differing interpretations of scripture, their are differing interpretations of the Quran, which like Christianity is why there are so many different groups. So which one would you say is the “true Islam”, they all would say they are just as Southern Baptists etc. believe they have the right and true theology.
Debbie, I am assuming this is a Christian site.
“Also, Qur’anic hermeneutics, just like biblical hermeneutics, is sometimes tricky.”
As True Christians, don’t we espouse sola scriptura? Surely, if Christianity is correct, ALL other belief systems that oppose Christianity would have to be false. Interpretation of certain texts within the bible accurately is possible just because it is truth and we as saved, have the ability to interpret them. The Koran, being a fiction, is going to be inconsistent with truth and hence sometimes suffer impossible hermeneutics. Thats why the Haddiths are necessary to accurately understand the Koran.That said, one only has to read the Koran – I have – to find it saying kill the infidel over 100 times. Pretty straight forward. Your an infidel to them, Debbie. The savage viciousness throughout
is obvious. One has to have a different agenda including wishful thinking, to interpret the Koran differently. The Hadiths and and Mohammed’s life examples are even more horrendous, than the Koran. Like ‘a man is actually doing a woman a favour by beating her occasionally’. A good Muslim follows Mohammed’s example, of course. For example, when Mohammed was growing in strength, he went out to plunder a trading caravan, as was his way. 149 of his direct relatives, set out to try peacefully dissuade him from his path. Mohammed murdered them all. His own family! It reminds me of ISIS, correctly reading this event. Get in the way of accurate, non western interpreted Islam, and you too, are to be murdered.
The Koran may not always be perspicuous, but the message is efficacious.
Bill Hessford: That is not something I wrote. That is a quote from David Rogers. Your argument would be with him.
Of course this is a Christian site. Are you saying to defend those Muslims who are not radical from over zealous Americans is not Christian? I would beg to differ.
I realized you used David’s quote. I was getting at the village atheist notion that the bible can be made (legitimately), to say anything. Then moving to the koran with some sort of equivalency. As Christians, we believe the bible is, as Schaeffer says, true Truth. The koran is not, and not from God. So hermeneutics is different between the two. Race politics, I’ll leave to you. I must admit, I don’t see your jump. I’m not looking for a fight.
I have noticed that those who are putting all Muslims in the same class are predominately white.
Nice try Debbie, my wife was thrown out of Egypt by the Muslims. They took by force all her families property and possessions. She was only 14, the rapes and murders by MODERATE Muslims against Christians, (her stories are horrendous) opened my eyes. Oh, my wife is black, so the latent reverse racism in your comments are giving your political bias away. Racism has no place in your Christianity, Debbie. All man is metaphysically equal, it’s our ethical behaviour that separates us.
Debbie,
By the same class, are you meaning that all Muslims hate God, hate Jesus, are lost and headed to everlasting punishment?
And that would include moderates and radical Muslims, unless of course the Lord saves them.
And by predominantly white, are you saying that you are not meaning those who are all white, but only those whose whiteness is more than 50 % of their heritage?
And what it really seems like you are saying is that you are accusing white people of being racist.
And not just white people, the white people in this discussion, which I have no idea how many are actually white. But you must, and it doesn’t seem to bother you to accuse Christians, of which most of the posters are, to be a racist.
Do you like to cause division in the Body?
Is that the kind of person you are?
It seems so to me.
And it seems to me that you like to make radical statements Mike.
BTW Mike: I’m not dividing the body, they are doing that all by themselves.
Liberalism within the ranks, sometimes wolves, cause most division. Noetic effects of sin taint us all. That’s why sola scriptura is essential. Nothing is the equivalent of God’s Holy word. Listening to local leftist ideology, and bringing that to the bible as some sort of interpretation aid is verging on heresy. (far right, not any better).Unless one has the Spirit of God, he cannot see the kingdom of God. One has to believe that God does teach us clearly and we do reach this truth, or man is lost still. A speck of dust, who knows where? For me, Christ is King, and there is no equivalency. Where else does one turn?
How to truthfully read my statements: I am a Christian first and foremost with all that entails(albeit not a separatist). Read my statements in this context to get a true reading comprehension.
As for the white remarks, I think racism comes in various forms. This being no exception.
Muslims are not a race.
“As for the white remarks, I think racism comes in various forms. This being no exception.”
I agree. Your remarks are racist.
Mike: Just look at the comments and read the names of who makes what comment.
Bill Mac: No, Islam is not a race, but you wouldn’t know that by the reaction of most Americans.
I don’t know most Americans.
Debbie,
“Mike: Just look at the comments and read the names of who makes what comment.”
You mean I should decide race by names?
Listen, Debbie, I don’t know what color your skin is. And I don’t care. But I would appreciate it if YOU would quit making racist remarks.
Thank you.
Bill Mac,
That is why you need someone like Debbie, who does know most Americans and their reactions.
Strange though, although I have a heard the reaction of a few Americans, none of them would make me think they were racist against Muslims.
Maybe that is because Muslim isn’t a race, its a religion. Its the religion of Islam. And people of various ‘races’ practice it with various degrees of intensity.
But the only person bringing up race is Debbie.
Now Bill Cosby is a black man.
So by her reasoning, every person named Bill is black.
But Bill Clinton was a white man.
I am so confused.
Now my name is Mike White.
I am obviously white skinned. But I know of at least three men named Mike White that are black skinned. I work with one. One was the mayor Cleveland. And one was a professional football player.
But no matter your skin color Bill Mac, I am glad to be called your brother in Christ.
History is bound to repeat itself unless deterred/checked by an equal and opposite force, that’s the nature of fallen mankind.
Thanks Lydia. I agree.
I’m willing to live and live live. I don’t know if everybody in the Middle East and now large parts of Europe feel the same.
Thought some of you might find this edifying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yCmnyzYeW8#t=247
Brother of two Christian victims of ISIS calls in to SAT-7 live programme ‘We Will Sing’
Who are these who are fighting and dying in the fight against ISIS? Mostly other Muslims with a few Christian militias.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-little-pharisaical-southern-baptist-copt-martyrs-christianity/
He stole my thought. 🙂 Christians are quick to reject others claiming the name when it comes to theology, but quick to adopt them when it comes to persecution. One minute: “They are not true Christians!” The next: “Our brothers in the faith are suffering!”
“Christians are quick to reject others claiming the name when it comes to theology, but quick to adopt them when it comes to persecution. ”
Christians as in all Christians? Not fair, Chris. I agree with Pope Francis said about our Coptic Brothers.
Some of them may not be really “suffering” as opposed to getting side glances from non-muslims in the U.S.
“So even as we acknowledge the obvious and describe ISIS as Islamic, we should give the rest of Islam credit for being, well, Islamic as well, and for having available arguments and traditions and interpretations that marginalized this kind of barbarism in the past, and God willing can do so once again.”
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/in-defense-of-islam/
From the Feb. 19th Wall Street Journal, an editorial:
“Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Boko Haram and other jihadist groups are waging more than a military conflict. They are also waging an increasing successful ideological war for the soul of Islam and its 1.6 billion followers.”
“Their version of jihad is gaining adherents precisely because it is motivated by an idea that challenges the values and beliefs of moderate Islam,the West, and modernity.”
People are religious by nature, created nature that is. The West and modernity seek to downplay this part of our nature, and make the world secular. And many people, freed from the constraints of rules embrace this ‘freedom’ and seek happiness, contentment, and peace in the heart in the world. Many simply live discontented, as they are unable to realize their desire[s].
In the Muslim world, the people are not so far removed from their religion [like in the West] because it is usually government sanctioned, and community peer pressured. Even when they immigrate, like to France or the USA, they stay connected in community centered around their religion.
But their religion, like any false faith does not satisfy. [We know that only in Christ can a person find that peace]. So these things set the stage for the disenfranchised Muslim to look for something ‘deeper’. But they don’t usually look outside out their own culture for the answer.
So into this mix, the jihadist groups offer a place for the moderate Muslim to go deeper, to get closer to Allah, to fulfill their life, and to secure their eternity by joining up and being a part of Allah’s moving.
I don’t disagree and if this had been the original thrust here, there wouldn’t have been much to discuss. Instead, there were references to “true Islam” which casually indicted the whole.
True William. Search for “true Islam” is juicy stuff. Most Muslims come to Australia for a better life, some fleeing persecution. But they don’t drop the reasons which cause the emigration in the first place – Islam. These (mostly) were “moderate”. Their children are rarely impressed though with the duplicity inherent. They tend not to stay like their parents. Some drop right out, even if not within the parents sight. Some become “western Muslims”. Some dig deeper into Islam. Some become radicalized. It’s got nothing to do with ‘getting a job’! Did Obama really say that? They are all individuals, making their choices – in the west anyway!). Not sure I like this game of lottery though.
Thanks for the examples, Chris. They are good to see, aren’t they?. I just wish they were somewhat proportionate. We could go down the list from Charlie Hebdo to the Danish cartoons, to bombings, etc, etc and we would not begin to see much of a proportionate style responses as you have listed. They seem to be the exception which is why they are mentioned. I am glad they are!
Some of the 9/11 hijackers had moderate/cultural Muslim parents who were appalled. they thought they were sending them West to study.
Young Muslims today are very versed with social media. They could be using it to speak out against the atrocities in huge numbers. I think it is foolhardy to try and paint this rise of what too many Muslims believe is “true Islam” as not a big deal. The question is does it follow the teachings of the Koran? I think it does based upon my reading of it. You know what the difference is in this movement? The leader has a Ph.D in Islamic Studies. He is not just a bold terrorist to them. He is the real deal to them. He knows his Koran.
Lydia,
Thank you for your common sense consistency on this matter. I have a feeling that a hundred years from now Americans ( if there is such a designation) will wonder why our generation was so accommodating to Islamic expansionism, particularly in view of the history that was available to us.
wilbur
” … wonder why our generation was so accommodating to Islamic expansionism …”
World War II should have taught us not to be complacent about such things … the Holocaust is a grim reminder of American apathy. Another genocide is taking place while the Super Power debates its options.
Thanks Wilbur. It is astounding how many people think Islam really is a religion of peace. They separate what Islam’s holy Scriptures teach from the benign Muslims that they meet/know. There really is an education problem concerning Islam. But what is worse is that we cannot become educated for discussion about it without being politically incorrect ….which is nothing but a control tactic.
Another scary factoid is that our president was referring to them as ISIL. Bad form! The Levant includes Israel.
Using ISIL instead of ISIS essentially says “I know who you are. I know what lands you plan to take.” Is it any wonder that POTUS and Netanyahu don’t get along?!
Lydia, I also appreciate your common sense. Too bad there’s not more of that floating around these days in and out of church. We’ve become so open-minded in this country, our brains have fallen out!
The U.S. Marines became “Leathernecks” because of Muslims.
Scott, What is the back story on that?
Lydia: check out Barbary Pirates and utilization by marines of leather collars as armour against the swords of their enemies.
ISIL is a chronic Freudian slip with POTUS.
“check out Barbary Pirates and utilization by marines of leather collars as armour against the swords of their enemies.”
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks.
“ISIL is a chronic Freudian slip with POTUS.”
Oh, I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing as do his advisors…which is basically insulting Israel with plausible deniability of the most cowardly kind. What really got to me was the news media picking up on it and using it, too, including some Fox people. Don’t they know better?
Bebe can handle it… although he should not have to as the only democracy in the ME, for crying out loud. I vascillate between Bebe and Donald Rumsfeld as to whom I have the biggest crush on. :o)
For those not tracking this exchange, ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Levant is a targeted multi-nation caliphate region creating a land bridge between Turkey and Egypt. What makes up the near exact center of the Muslim Levant? Israel!
Franklin Graham – wow.
http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=15488#
Yes, pray for Franklin Graham.
Interesting read and poll results –
http://news.investors.com/politics/021215-739192-muslim-surveys-refute-obama-moderate-claim.htm?utm_content=bufferbed20&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Bill Mac wrote:
Muslims are not a race.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Muslims are a people across many cultures and ethnic backgrounds. They are not a race any more than Christians are a race, which is to say that they are not a race.
Read the Wikipedia article.
Greg,
Being a Muslim means you are a member of a certain religion. Just like being a Christian means you are part of a certain religion. But don’t confuse a common ideology with race.
From the article:
“The word Ummah refers to “the people” in Arabic, more specifically to Muslim people with a common ideology and culture. “Ummah” is also said in the Quran by Allah referring to Muslims. It is more commonly used in Islamic countries. Muslim Ummah absolutely refers to the unity of Muslims all over the world. It is a communal word which divides people into two classes: one of them is Muslim and the other is non Muslim.”
Now more than one ‘race’ can be part of that community, and share the same ideology and culture.
Similar to Christianity where we are one community that share a culture of Christianity and its ideology.
So Ummah does not mean ‘race’.
Actually there is but ONE race with different colors of skin. There is no Muslim race. There is no white race. There is no black race. There is the human race. But sometimes the word race is used to denote skin color and/or ancestry. Muslims are of many skin colors and various ancestries.
Mike said:
“Actually there is but ONE race with different colors of skin. There is no Muslim race. There is no white race. There is no black race. There is the human race. But sometimes the word race is used to denote skin color and/or ancestry. Muslims are of many skin colors and various ancestries.”
And he’s right.
Check this one out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam
I am very confused about referring to Muslims as a “race” even if we use it in a wrong context that there are actually differnt races, which there are not. There are ethnicities. I have some family who are missionaries in the very Islamic Indonesia. How would those Muslims fit into the “race” category for Islam? As Asians? There is some confusion here for Pakistani and Indian Muslims are thought of as “Asian? by Europeans.
And, one of the growing segments of Islam are Westernized white young men. Westernized white women have been marrying Muslims and converting since the 1980’s when there was a mass influx of Iranian and Saudi University students.
Would we think someone against Christianity– a “racist”? That seems weird to me.
Dead right, if you dislike Muslims, your racist. If you dislike Christians – well, they should be racist too. If one is consistent. Semantics. Little more than a power play. What is the real agenda of someone who calls someone a racist when they are talking about religion? Inner urban, leftist, elitist, ideology. Obama swims in it. It’s standard school curriculum in Australia.
When I went to school in 1965, race was not a dirty word. But since the left wants one big homogeneous, border-less world, the distinctions between ethnic heredity, have had to be removed. “Race” is now much broader. If you make distinctions, your labelled a hater. Unbelievers also want one all inclusive religion. No difference between sexes, either. (or your a hater, phobic, sexist) Of course, Christ says to come out from among them. We are not popular, but Christianity was never meant to be a popularity contest. They still hate Israel! “Civil” unbelievers (education, media, arts), vilify Christians and Jews, the barbarians simply kill us.
Guess God should apologize for creating such a diversity of humanity, huh?
God never makes mistakes. Man does.Men should apologize.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/
The following is from a World Watch Monitor Facebook status linking to the article in The Atlantic referenced above: