Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Finally, he was willing to rent on our terms. But the relentless haggling we experienced was a concern, and I worried that this habit would create other problems. We almost turned down his application, but, with an eye toward the law’s requirement that we not act prejudicially against anyone because of race, creed, or national origin, we felt that refusing him might lead to legal problems. So, with some trepidation, we opened our home to M.
It turned out that M was a wonderful renter. He was clean, considerate, and pretty much kept to himself because of the huge workload of his project. We were aware that he was a Muslim, so we initially stayed away from personal subjects like religion. As time went on, though, we all got to know each other better. For example, he told us that he had a big family that moved to the United States a few years earlier, but they had kept pretty much to themselves and had few acquaintances beyond their faith community. We came to realize that, because of this isolation, our cohabitation was as much a cultural watershed for him as it was for us.
As the months went by, M and I developed a friendship, and, before he left, we actually prayed over an occasional meal together. When it was my turn, I directed my prayer strictly to God in order to avoid turning our communal meal into something negative, and our conversations always stuck strictly to the positive.
From time to time, I would ask M questions about Islam that bothered me. For example, we once discussed the concept of multiple wives. M explained that, even though it was lawful to have more than one wife, most people only had one, because only the wealthy could afford more. Answers like this naturally begged more questions, to which M simply claimed ignorance – he told me he would have to discuss these questions with an Islamic scholar before responding.
After a few months, M’s contract ended and he packed his bags. Before he left, however, he handed us two videos by Ahmet Deedat, a noted and revered Islamic scholar.
One of the videos was Is Jesus God? In it, Mr. Deedat debated the doctrine of the Trinity with Dr. Anis Shorrosh, an Egyptian Christian whom I had never heard of. The other was Is the Bible the Inerrant word of God? In this video, Mr. Deedat debated the validity of the Bible with Jimmy Swaggart, [4] who was definitely not a person I would choose to represent Christianity in a debate. Despite the questionable qualifications of these Christian representatives, I sat down and watched both videos, because I had promised M that I would.
Both debates were actually quite interesting and informative, and the Christian representatives held their own admirably against the truly learned Mr. Deedat. Both debates ultimately hinged on the validity of the Bible, which Deedat could only chip away at by pointing out some minor inconsistencies that could easily be explained as transcription errors or matters of interpretation.
The impression that these debates left me with was that, whether or not you believed in the Bible’s validity, your pre-conceived notions were reinforced. After a series of indecisive scrimmages, the interlocutors ended each debate with a respectful exchange of words, reminiscent of the diplomatic “agree to disagree” language of the Cold War in the ‘80s.
While watching these videos, though, I noticed that they had both been edited after taping. Word balloons frequently appeared, with arrows pointing to the heads of the Christian representatives, making nasty little comments about their arguments or personal lives, intending to ridicule them. The only balloon that said anything positive was one pointing to the head of a gentleman in the audience, telling the viewer that Cat Stevens, Islam’s favorite convert, was in the house.
If the debates had been unedited, I would have thought them fair. Certainly, the people representing Christianity had no idea that the tapes were going to be doctored. Through stealth, the editors had transformed these debates into overt propaganda. Additionally, the selection of Jimmy Swaggart to represent Christianity was a set-up. The editing tactics displayed a mean spirit, with no sense of fairness, and they did not cast a favorable light on Islam. Instead, they revealed how winning was more important to the editors than presenting an honest inquiry.
Moreover, the questions used in these debates, “Is Jesus God?” and “Is the Bible the Infallible word of God?” imply that these are bedrock doctrines of Christianity. If Mr. Deedat could prove that Jesus is not God, and that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, then he would be able to claim that his Christian opponents were wrong, and therefore Christianity itself was wrong. The implication was that, if Christianity was wrong, then Islam was right, even though the doctrines of Islam were never put in the spotlight for critical analysis.
In truth, the questions raised by these videos did not validate or invalidate Christianity because they are ones that Christians themselves have debated since Christianity’s beginning. On the nature of Jesus, there are (or were) Catholic, Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, Gnostic, and other Christian doctrines. With regard to the Bible, the titles of the New Testament books themselves answer the question of whether they are “the Infallible word of God.” We have the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude. Obviously, these books were written by men believed to be inspired by God. No Christian would claim that these books are “the infallible word of God” Himself, in the manner understood by Muslims, who believe that the Koran is literally the perfect and eternal word spoken by Allah.
It should come as no surprise that the video, Is the Bible the infallible word of God? , did not debate the subject claimed. Instead of discussing whether the Bible was the word of God, Deedat and Swaggart debated the Bible’s accuracy. The reason the editors chose this video’s title is because it alludes to what Muslims claim for the Koran, not because of what Christians claim for the Bible.
Despite the irrelevance of these two questions to Christianity’s legitimacy, these videos were presented as if Christianity was on trial. Meanwhile, the tenets of Islam remained in the shadows, unchallenged. When I was done watching these videos, I wondered whether anyone ever videotaped similar debates entitled “Is Muhammad God’s Apostle?” or “Is the Koran the Infallible Word of God?”
Then it dawned on me that such a debate was nearly impossible, because arguing against Muhammad and the Koran are “insults to Islam” that would invite death threats. Since that time, I have searched for recorded debates on my two hypothetical questions. Sure enough, while there are monologues written by people hiding on the internet, I have found almost no recordings of reasoned face-to-face debates. The few debates that do exist treat both Muhammad and the Koran very gently, so as to not offend the Islamic debater. Interestingly, even under these favorable circumstances, Muhammad and the Koran hold up poorly. [5]
My wife also had some interesting experiences. While working toward a Master’s degree, she participated in a team project that included a female Muslim student. My wife frequently complained about not being able to organize team meetings because the Muslim woman refused to agree to a time without first getting her husband’s permission.
Later, I read about an honor killing in the U.S. that was motivated by a Muslim family’s disgrace when a daughter rejected Islamic ways and cavorted like a normal American teenager. Surprisingly, the court gave a lenient sentence to the murderer in deference to the family’s cultural background.
Then came news about the Taliban during the spring and summer of 2001. I sensed that some kind of line had been crossed when I read about the Taliban’s decision to destroy two ancient standing Buddha statues. Their reason for blasting away these huge and irreplaceable artifacts was that they represented idolatry and a polytheist religion.
The final straw was when I heard that the Taliban imprisoned, and later expelled, a group of International Aid workers because they clandestinely evangelized to Afghanis. Even worse, the Afghanis who converted to Christianity were put on trial for their lives.
At this time, I began to talk about my concern that Islam was not the religion of peace that Muslims claimed it was. My fear was that Islam’s followers were beginning to assert themselves in ways that could ultimately threaten the United States.
For the most part, people looked at me as if I was crazy, or maybe even politically incorrect. Even after Osama bin Laden’s bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the downing of United Airlines flight 93, many of the people I spoke with remained in denial about Islam, going so far as to say that my translations of the Koran must have been forgeries, written by people hostile to this peaceful religion. They refused to even read the Koran. One person told me emphatically that a person did not have to read the Koran to understand Muslims. He, like so many people I knew, accepted the notion that Islam was a religion of peace without ever checking the facts. He insisted that the violent Muslims were misinterpreting the Koran rather than acting on its instructions. Besides, he declared, Christianity also had a bloody history, so we had no right to complain.
I wondered if these people realized that, according to Islam, it is unlawful for Infidels to even live on the Arabian Peninsula. Did they know that Osama bin Laden’s fury at the U.S. was based on this prohibition, because the United States fulfilled a request by the Saudi family to put a military base on Saudi soil, to protect them from Saddam Hussein after he annexed Kuwait? Did they think that this prohibition was something that a peaceful religion would create? Did they think that it was appropriate for this violation of Islamic Law to be used to justify the killing thousands of civilians on September 11, 2001? I hoped not.
The most disturbing thing I remember from September 11 was watching the Twin Towers burn on TV, with people jumping from the windows, and then staring in disbelief as the towers crashed to the ground. I was in shock, and so was the nation. After a stunned silence, a bewildered cry rose up: “Why do they hate us?”
The second most disturbing thing I remember was something said at the prayer service organized by George Bush a few days later. At the service, President Bush made a dramatic effort to bring about healing and proclaim a universal mourning among people of all faiths for the terrible loss. He made a point of portraying the hijackers as terrorists who did not represent true Islam. After his speech, he was followed by a series of religious leaders who took turns speaking and offering prayers. What struck me about the Islamic cleric was that, while others discussed the terrible loss of life, the cleric talked specifically about the loss of innocents. His language gave me the distinct impression that the term “innocents” was not meant to include all of the victims.
Shortly thereafter, I read about how northern Nigeria had adopted Shari’ah and quickly moved to sentence a woman to death by stoning for getting pregnant out of wedlock. After a world-wide protest, she was ultimately released from this sentence, but only because of a loop-hole: she got pregnant before the law was enacted.
For me, this outcome was no consolation. It certainly would not prevent other stonings. I was also dismayed to note that, while this one woman’s sentence was making headlines, the plight of thousands of Christians in Islamic countries barely registered in the news. This was particularly true in Sudan, where hundreds of thousands were being systematically displaced, enslaved or killed while the UN debated over whether the actions constituted genocide.
Finally, our experience in Iraq during and after the two Gulf Wars uncovered Islam’s true intentions toward the West. Let me explain:
- At the end of the first Gulf War, the U.S. made a decision to stop its advance at the Iraqi border, rather than continue toward Baghdad to topple Saddam’s reign. It did this because the Sunni Arab nations in its coalition would not support further action, which could have shifted power into the hands of Iraq’s Shiite majority.
- As a result, the United States was prevented from overtly supporting the Shiite rebellion that was taking place in Iraq, as it did later with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance. Instead, the U.S. could only provide low-level, indirect support. Saddam subsequently crushed the rebellion and killed hundreds of thousands of Shiite Iraqis.
Who did the press blame for this atrocity? They blamed the U.S., for standing by and letting the slaughter happen. Our press never seemed to put one and one together to recognize that the real cause of the slaughter was a longstanding hostility between Sunnis and Shiites. Instead, they labeled the bloodbath within Iraq as a failure of U.S. policy.
Because many Americans are quick to believe their accusers, the popular sentiment in the U.S. was that the U.S. was to blame. Therefore, U.S. leaders vowed that they would not let the same mistake happen again. When the second war with Iraq started, the U.S. vowed not to leave the Shiites vulnerable. It then set out to establish an Iraqi government that would give Shiites limited political power through free and democratic institutions.
While protests against the war came as no surprise, most Americans were shocked when the newly liberated Shiites turned against the Coalition forces that had liberated them. The response they gave appeared to be: “Thank you very much [for ousting Saddam]. Now get out!”
- This sentiment was openly declared by Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, a Shiite leader who loomed large during the war, but later died in a bomb blast that killed over 80 people.
[6]
- As reported by Newsday, al-Hakim sent this less-than-friendly message to the liberators of his people:
[7]
- “If the Americans enter Iraq because they want to rescue our people from this evil regime, and then they leave matters to the Iraqi people themselves, then everyone will be pleased,”…”But if the Americans come in with the intention of controlling Iraq…then they’re going to face strong opposition from all the Iraqi people.”
- He warned that
a prolonged occupation would give the war the appearance of a crusade.
- “This will inflame religious tensions,” al-Hakim said.
“It will show that the Americans want to humiliate and subdue the Iraqi people.
- It will bring us back to the days of colonial rule, and that will renew nationalist feelings in Iraq.”
He deflected a question about whether his Badr fighters would attack U.S. forces during an occupation.
- “We have been fighting for our freedom for a long time,” he said, guardedly. “We will continue to do so.”
- Not exactly the kind of warm welcome that Americans had hoped for from the Shiites, especially because a prolonged occupation was necessary simply to develop a constitution and establish other foundations of democracy. This was nothing like France after its liberation from Hitler.
- Instead of praising the liberators for their sacrifice, many Shiite leaders chastised themselves for being helpless for all of those years. It was a deep insult to be rescued by a Coalition of Infidel nations led by the U.S., which is popularly known in their region as “the Great Satan.” Even more humiliating was the fact that the Coalition of the Willing wiped out Saddam’s regime in mere weeks.
- In the months that followed, the hundreds of thousands who were killed by Saddam seemed to be forgotten, but every unintended civilian death or rogue action by an American was portrayed as a brutal display of colonial oppression by foreign Infidels. While Shiites and Sunnis blew up each other’s mosques, Coalition forces would find themselves caught in stand-offs with insurgents who used mosques as shields, knowing that any Coalition attack on a mosque would be seen as a direct attack on Islam, worthy of retaliatory jihad.
- U.S. leaders had expected remnants of Saddam’s reign to continue an insurgency, but they were blindsided when they found that some of the Governing Council’s greatest threats were Shiite clerics. For example, at the beginning of 2004, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani, the religious leader of Iraq’s Shiites, decided that the elections were not being scheduled quickly enough, and nearly derailed the entire transition process with a Shiite uprising. Fortunately, he later consented to the Coalition’s plan, but only after Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council visited him repeatedly, and after UN representatives convinced him that an earlier date was not possible because of the work needed to prepare for a vote.
- Later, on April 4, 2004, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr incited an uprising that overran Najaf and quickly spread to other cities. On May 7th, one of his senior aides, Shiite Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, gave a sermon [8] where:
He told worshippers that anyone capturing a female British soldier can keep her as a slave.
He called on supporters to launch a jihad against British troops.
He offered a bounty for capturing or killing members of the Coalition’s Governing Council.
Through a combination of intense diplomatic and military actions, this crisis was also contained, but hostility toward the United States remained high. Since then, our military’s goal has changed. It no longer expects to win the hearts of Iraqis. Instead, it wants to lower its profile by placing Iraqis on the front line, while also controlling the Iraqis enough to keep them from turning on each other. In doing so, it hopes to buy time for the fledgling Iraqi government to establish itself enough to prevent a revolution or civil war, so that the Coalition can leave without creating the appearance of retreating in disgrace. This is important because the appearance of retreat could become a rallying cry for militant Muslims eager to go on the offensive against the U.S. and its allies.
In fact, hatred toward the United States was so strong that on July 4, 2004, George Sada, spokesman for Ayad Allawi, the newly appointed Shiite Prime Minister of Iraq, announced: “If [a guerrilla] was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force. We will give them freedom.” [9]
Throughout the Governing Council’s administration, America was blamed for ruthless or callous indifference to civilian lives when military actions caused civilian casualties. Similarly, Americans were blamed for not providing adequate security when insurgents bombed a public place and killed dozens or hundreds of civilians.
[4] Fundamentalist Christian televangelist who reached his height in popularity in the 1980s, but whose reputation was severely damaged by a prostitution scandal in 1988.
[5] To see examples of these debates, visit Ankerberg and The Things That Matter Most. You can also conduct your own web search by using variations of “Koran word of God” and “Is Muhammad the prophet of God” as keyword strings.
[6] Iraqi Shiites Flex Muscle Even as They Mourn, by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, September 1, 2003.
[7] Shiite Cleric may be a force after Saddam, by Mohamad Bazzi, Newsday, March 18, 2003.
[8] Cleric rips U.S. about Iraq abuse, by Scheherezade Faramarzi, Associated Press, The Washington Times, May 8, 2004.
[9] Iraqi leader considers amnesty for insurgents, by Jim Krane, Associated Press, July 4, 2004.
Recent Comments