by Marcel Rebiai

pdf for download (86 KB)

The events of September 11 precipitated a development pointing to two primary sources of  evil for endangering world security and peaceful co-existence: Israel and the confessing Christians. It is fashionable to give them the stigmatising label "Fundamentalists".

How do I come to this conclusion? What political and ideological views are being discussed? It has been shown that this attack, which ruthlessly overran all previous boundaries for handling international conflicts, was perpetrated by convinced Moslems. These are people who are absolutely serious about their faith and their religion. They base their lives on nothing but their religious sources, i.e. the Koran and the Hadith (=traditional teaching on the life and thoughts of Mohammed and his followers.)

However, their thoughts and actions can neither be comprehended nor accepted by a non-Moslem, especially one from Western culture. Western politicians and church leaders, in alliance with the media and the Islamic intelligentsia, are trying to make us believe that the attack had nothing to do with true Islam. They advocate the view that these terrorists were not genuine Moslems but the kind of fanatics that can be found in every religion and culture. Filled with their desire for a conflict-free, harmonious and respectable world, many are quick to claim that Islam is a religion of peace which rejects violence against those with other beliefs.

Islamic states such as Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iran forbid every form of public expression or practice of non-Islamic religion; they pursue missionaries with criminal laws and punish conversion to the Christian faith by death, on the basis of "sharia" (= religious law). Western society seems either to be unaware of this or to consider it an insignificant expression of Islam's violent nature. Indignation over violations of human rights is preferably reserved for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An example of this is the Geneva conference on Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinian people.

Equating Christianity and Islam

In order to prevent any accusation of Islam and forestall any doubts, the Catholic-Protestant conflict and its attending terror in the name of the Christian religion are called to mind. The Inquisition and the Crusades are likewise brought up in order to call attention to the confusion and degeneration in all religions. Christianity and Islam are seen as religions which are equally easy to misuse. It is true that Christianity has been and is still often mis-used. But whoever equates Islam and Christianity has understood neither the one nor the other.

Islam as partner?

In order to win Islamic nations as partners in the battle against terror, leading Western nations reassure them that they do not question their religion, but respect and esteem it. As far as I know, Islam is the only religion which was protected at the recent Durban conference with a resolution against "Islamophobia" (=pathological fear of Islam). In the Western world it is considered improper to express criticism of Islam. Whoever does so may be suspected of intolerance, prejudice, or even racism. And what does the Western person fear more than such a label? The Islamic intelligentsia and spiritual leadership is aware of these inhibitions and plays the tolerance cards brilliantly against such emotions and fears. They demand rights for Islam which Islam would never accord to other religious groups.

No religious freedom in Islamic states

Where can churches or synagogues, Christian or Jewish schools now be built in countries such as Saudi-Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan - who are all being wooed for the anti-terror coalition?

The Islamic countries have a clear stance. Whatever they do or don't do at home they claim is their own business. This world view, life-style, and culture, which a non-Moslem cannot understand, must be accepted and respected.

A conference of Islamic secretaries of state ten years ago concluded that demanding a Western definition of human rights is intellectual colonialism and paternalism. Amar Moussa, former Egyptian secretary of state and now president of the Arab League, recently warned Western nations against a confrontation between civilisations. He demanded that they do away with every form of enmity, rejection, and suppression toward the Islamic world. Terrorism should be understood as the result of suppression and poverty. When these are once done away with, nothing will hinder world-wide peace.

Significantly, Amar Moussa can be sure of the Western world's approval. Many agree that the radical elements are the sole problem in every religion. Therefore the conflict-producing extremists, the peace-hinderers, and the seats of unrest must be neutralised. The Islamic nations leave no doubt about who they think fulfills these criteria: confessing Christians and Israel.

Confessing Christians: the disturbing factor

Why Christians? Christians are convinced that everyone living in the Islamic world, like all others, has the right to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. They consider it their duty to make the Gospel available for Moslems' consideration. This attitude leads to confrontation with official Islam, i.e. with Islamic governments and religious leaders. Must Western church leaders, politicians, and media oppose missionaries and forbid their work among Islamic peoples in order to meet Islam's demand for unconditional acceptance?

Can it be that the central tenets of the Gospel, along with the confessing Christians themselves, must be sacrificed in order to avoid conflicts with Islam? Must the West make this effort to reduce Islamic aggression, violence, and terror because it is willing to do anything for its own interests and security?

Controversy over Israel

It appears that the Western world is increasingly willing to sacrifice Israel, as well, for the sake of its own security, which is threatened by the Islamic world's unpredictability. As the UN human rights conference in Durban showed, all Islamic states - not only the Palestinian representatives - are united in their enmity toward Israel. Their co-operation in the USA's anti-terror coalition is made dependent on the West's attitude toward Israel. Countries like Iran and Syria, which until now have been proscribed because they were considered shelters for terror cells, are suddenly being wooed by the West. At the same time Israel is informed that its participation in the coalition would aggravate too many countries, especially Islamic ones.

Syria is even allowed to be a member of the UN's permanent security council without protest from the US, let alone from the EU - even though everyone knows that Syria supports terror organisations such as Hisbollah and has occupied parts of Lebanon for years. The only ones who were criticised for their position on Lebanon were the Israelis, prior to their withdrawal in May 2000.

Two definitions of terror

President Bush has surprisingly begun speaking of a Palestinian state. Strangely enough, he has two definitions of terror. Terror which affects his country is to be fought with all means. But Israel's daily experiences - murderous ambushes against buses, cars, restaurants, and pedestrians - is not terror in the same sense.

Israel is under increasing pressure to bow to Islam's demands by withdrawing to a minimum of territory and giving up holy cities such as Jerusalem and Hebron. Otherwise Israel's "provocation" of the Islamic world would endanger Western interests. It will soon be seen how much substance the present assertions of friendship on the part of Tony Blair, George Bush and Gerhard Schroder will be retained.

House of peace, house of war

One cannot make alliances with and promises to Islam, and think it can all be reinterpreted later. Using force to secure one's right is not just the bad habit of a few naughty Islamic boys. It has to do with the very character of Islam. The word "Islam" means not only peace, but also submission. The world is divided into the house of Islam (=house of peace) and the house of war (=every non-Islamic territory). There is peace only for those who have been transferred from the house of war to the house of Islam through subjection.

It would be fitting for Western church leaders, politicians, and media personnel to study seriously the basic principles of Islam. They should dare an attempt to understand them from the standpoint of Islamic thinking rather than from Western humanistic presuppositions. The West's naivité regarding Islamic self understanding could lead to a rude awakening.

The message of love

We disciples of Jesus clearly distinguish between Islam as a religion or ideology and the Moslems as persons. Moslems are - just like all of us - persons who are loved by God. Jesus gave His life for them in order to open the way to the Father's house. We love, esteem, and respect them, at the same time clearly distancing ourselves from the religion which influences, drives, and imprisons them.

It is a challenge to take a stand regarding Islam. But if we really believe that people can experience salvation and peace solely through the name of Jesus, the Messiah, it is unloving and irresponsible to abandon Moslems, display tolerance and indifference and withhold the Good News from them.
I hope from my heart that we have the courage not to bow in the face of questions and threats. We must acquire our own conviction on the basis of God's Word. Such a conviction will make us a sign of hope and a light in the darkness - in our relationship to Israel as well as in our love toward the Islamic peoples.

I wish from my heart that we show courage not to bow in the face of questioning and threats. We must acquire our own conviction on the basis of God's Word, a conviction which will help us be a sign of hope and a light in the darkness in our relationship to Israel; as well as in our love toward the Islamic peoples.

©Community of Reconciliation-COR
P.O. Box 134
CH- 8411 Winterthur
+ (0)44 935 47 51