Mark Durie

An edited version of a sermon given at St Hilary's Anglican Church

14 October, 2001

In these days, and in this world, how should we respond to Islam? This is a vast topic. For Christians it is a topic which demands that we be well-informed.

Last week I was chatting with some friends - not church goers. When recent events came up in our talk someone said "I suppose that the crusades was the first time Islam and Christianity had encountered each other."

I was flabbergasted. In this one remark, the memory of the vast and sophisticated Christian communities which were overrun and whose remnants are still oppressed by Islam to this day, had been completely erased. It was as fantastical a thing to say as "Christianity is a western religion." Since its beginnings in the 7th century, Islam has had direct and continuous contact with Christianity.

At the end of the 20th century, the eminent Islamicist William Montgomery Watt wrote in the Journal of Semitic Studies: "Does the shari'ah -Islamic law - allow Muslims to live peaceably with non-Muslims in the 'one world'? To have an answer to [this question] may be a matter of urgency in a few years time."

Indeed. After September 11 the whole world is thinking about how to respond to Islam. These acts were done in the name of Islam by men from Islamic countries. In considering what they mean it has become impossible not to consider Islam.

At the beginning of the 21st century, we are confronted with the rise of global Islamic movements of all kinds.

Our attention has been drawn these past weeks to the Al Qaeda network. But also to the Organisation for the Islamic Conference, a grouping of 57 nations where Islam is the dominant faith. The foreign ministers of these nations, meeting in Qatar this week, whilst denouncing the terrorist attacks on America, affirmed what they termed 'the tolerant and divine message' of Islam. .

To my mind, the most notable thing about the OIC is that there could never be a Christian parallel to such an organization. It would be unthinkable for the foreign ministers of any grouping of nations, as an act of global politics, to publicly affirm the truth of the Christian gospel.

The reality we must face is that Islam is not only a religion: it has become perhaps the most significant global political movement of our world today. There are very few governments, if any, in our world which actively promote Christianity as a matter of public policy - but Islam is actively favoured and promoted by many Muslim governments, and in a manner which is increasingly organized on a global scale.

Hassan Al-Turabi, who organized an international 'Popular Arab and Islamic Conference' in December of 1993 proclaimed 'Objectively, the future is ours. '

What will the future hold? Will the 21st century be the century of Islam, as its visionaries believe.

How should we respond?

Responses to Islam

Let us first consider some possible responses from within the Australian community to Islam: responses which I term paranoia, naivety or multicultural denial, and appeasement.

One possible response is paranoia, a type of religious racism. This is characterized by ignorance and fear, and an inability to see Muslims as individuals.

Twenty years ago I lived amongst the people of Aceh, an Islamic people of Indonesia. I would spend many hours talking about faith in what was at that time a peaceful country, and formed deep friendships. Countless numbers of Acehnese people attempted to convert me to Islam, and marry me off to a local woman! I had to develop answers to this, and one was that it wouldn't do, since I was too tall, and the Acehnese women too short. One enterprising Acehnese man came back "No problem. Islam allows more than one wife. You can join two together." I resisted the offer, but appreciated the good humour with which it was made.

The depth of friendships which I enjoyed with so many Acehnese people makes the possibility of a paranoid response especially repugnant to me. We must make every effort to avoid this response, both individually and as a nation. During times of international conflict we must ensure that police protection is provided for Muslim minorities within Australia who are subjected to attacks motivated by hate and racism.

Another possible response is naivety. We experience moral shock at the world-view of the radicals, and conclude that they lie beyond the pale of normal rationality and morality. They are simply evil, insane, or both. Mayor Rudolph Guiliani adopted this position when he addressed the United Nations: "Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we're having in New York City". The mayor went on to describe the terrorists' acts as 'insane, maniacal', an evil which cannot be understood, but only eliminated.

This is a naive response. We must ask why such events occur.

Another response is denial. Within this view Islam is to be regarded as a 'respectable religion', as one writer in the Melbourne Age put it, and as such beyond scrutiny.

But how valid is respect of something which we do not understand? How can we respect an ideology without understanding it? Is this sensible? Respect, when unearned, is simply a form of prejudice.

There is, of course, a kind of respect which we can extend without risk of prejudice - as when we respect human dignity, or the inalienable human rights of others. But respect for a complete religious system with a long history must be based on the evidence of its principles and its fruits.

But here we encounter a problem. How do we decide between what appear to be different versions of Islam? Is true Islam the tolerant, peaceful vision of pamphlets found in mosques or Saudi embassies throughout the Western world? Or is it the faith of Osama Bin Laden? Will the true Muslim please stand up!

The easy option, protecting our multi-cultural world view, was expressed by Michael J. Horton of Sydney, writing to Time Magazine: "No true religion encourages its members to commit suicide or the mass murder of innocent people. Those who promote such a heinous philosophy are the enemies of religion, and it is the duty of all believers to oppose them." Or as a Muslim cleric said this week of firebomb attacks against churches and mosques in Western Sydney: these people cannot be Muslims or Christians.

I suspect this response, denying that terrorists are Muslims, is partly driven by fear - the alternative has too many consequences for us to face.

One natural consequence of fear is appeasement. We see the tactics of appeasement in international diplomacy today. The allies want to go after terrorists, whilst keeping Muslim nations on side as much as possible. To do this they must deny that the terrorists acted as Muslims, and the problem is their terrorist, not their religion. This puts Islam beyond critique.

But if paranoia, naivety, denial and appeasement are unwise or unreasonable, how are we to respond?

The fundamental issues are theological. Fundamental to Islam is what the Organisation for the Islamic Conference called the 'divine message'. Islam is a religion of revealed truth. Doctrine is the most significant determining factor for determining the future of Islam over the whole world.

Within Islam theology rules. Ultimately all authority is based in the Koran - God's revelation through Muhammad - and the sayings of Muhammad. This deposit of revelation was developed into an all-encompassing legal system in the first centuries of Islam, the shari'ah, which has profoundly shaped the history of Islam. This legal system is to be enforced by the Muslim community, in the same way that the government of Australia enforces the laws of the land. Under Islam, the laws of the land, and the laws of the faith are one.

Whilst there is great diversity in Islam, in the long haul, as a religion of the book, its deposit of revelation provides the reforming principles which keep it on course. It is no coincidence that it is religious students - those whose world views are most freshly shaped by doctrine - who are reacting so strongly throughout the Islamic world to the present-day allied military activities.

To respond to Islam at any level - social, political, cultural, theological - we must interact with its theology.

For example, we should listen to what it teaches about us as Christians.

What does Islam say about Christianity?

Islam claims anteriority or precedence in relation to Christianity.

In a booklet which you can order from the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, we read "Islam is the same truth that God revealed through all his prophets to every people". Islam was the religion of Adam, of Moses, of Abraham, even of Jesus. Islam teaches that the revelation of Islam to these, and other, prophets, were subsequently corrupted by dishonest people. The gospels, for example, are a corruption of the revelation which Allah gave to Jesus. Before Christianity was, Islam is. Islam is the primordial religion, of which Christianity, like Judaism, is a corrupted version.

Muhammad was the last and final of the prophets, whom all peoples of the earth should rightly acknowledge when they submit to Allah.

Nevertheless, from its very beginnings, Islam has permitted the continued presence of Christians within its community. The starting point for understanding this permission is the divine institution of jihad.

Jihad means 'struggle', and it is required for all Muslims.

There are two aspects of Jihad - internal and external. The internal struggle, which moderate Muslims emphasize, is the struggle within oneself to follow Islam.

The external struggle involves taking up arms against the enemies of Islam to expand the borders of Islamic jurisdiction, and also to defend the Muslim community against outside attack. Classical Islamic theology divides the world into two domains: the Dar al-Islam or region of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or region of war, where Islamic society does not prevail. Within the Dar al-Islam, peace reigns, but only in the form of Islamic society. The region of war is a domain where all who do not submit to Islam are to be found. We Australians live in the region of war.

The renowned historian and jurist, Ibn Kaldun, taught this: "In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission, and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." It is for this reason - Ibn Kaldun goes on to explain - that the offices of religion and politics are united in Islam, to ensure the success of the jihad.

Societies today where jihad is actively being practised include the Philippines, Sudan, Indonesia, Israel, Kashmir, Nigeria, Lebanon, and also through terrorism, in the West. Some persistent patterns of jihad include: economic plundering (there is evidence of approximately 15 billion dollars of profits made from hedging investments which appeared to be placed with fore-knowledge of the September 11 bombings), the taking of hostages (witness the Taliban's willingness to use the Westerners imprisoned for allegedly proselytizing as bargaining chips), readiness for martyrdom, devaluing of non-Muslim lives in comparison to Muslim lives, and the influence of theological advisors upon the conflict, sometimes even involving close supervision (it is a cleric who coordinates the jihad army - the Laksa Jihad - in Indonesia today). A pattern of appeasement of Muslim aggression by non-Muslims is also characteristic of jihad. These characteristics may be observed today in the Sudan, in terrorism in western countries, as well as in the whole pattern of the expansion of Islam from the earliest days.

What then happens to non-Muslim communities who are conquered by Islam? The legal interpretations are quite specific and detailed. Communities of non-Muslims who find themselves conquered have the option of:

1) converting,

2) resisting -which meant death or slavery

History documents vast numbers of people who have been forcibly converted to Islam or enslaved, and countless massacres of those who refused.

3) becoming a 'protected' community within Islam, known as the dhimmis. Such communities have been subjected to a head-tax, many legal burdens, and other discriminatory practices. They do not have equal rights to Muslims. Such has been the lot of all Christian and Jewish communities throughout the Muslim world.

All this is beyond dispute and well-documented. Al-Mawardi, an 11th century jurist and theologian, wrote about the head-tax that it was either a sign of contempt, because of their unbelief, or a sign of mildness of the Muslims, who granted the dhimmis quarter (instead of killing or enslaving them). In other words, the dhimmi's should rightly be made to feel either shame (about their own state), or gratitude (to the Muslims for sparing them) about their treatment. On what basis did al-Mawardi teach this? Because Muhammad said humiliation and degradation are to be the lot of those who disobey his teaching.

Shari'ah law specifically stipulates that the dhimmis should be humiliated, whilst always showing respect to Muslims. It is out of this legal tradition that Hindus in Afghanistan today are required to wear distinctive clothing, something which has attracted media attention due to its similarity to Nazi treatment of Jews.

When Islam's subject peoples later try to assert their independence, then, according to the doctrine of jihad, they revert to the status of enemies of Islam. Whenever this has happened, history shows that they are crushed. Consider the fate of millions of Armenians, massacred by Muslims at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Their crime was to aspire to an Armenian state, on the grounds that they could only experience freedom outside of Islam.

A profound 'us' and 'them' mentality pervades Islam. Islamic law teaches that Muslims are a single community - the Umma. Any non-Muslim alliance who fights against Muslims is regarded as an enemy of Islam.

From a doctrinal point of view, it is impossible for a non-Muslim force to wage war on a Muslim community without this being of religious significance, an assault on Islam. Al-Mawardi, a key legislator of the 11th century, wrote "When allies and their tributaries unite in order to combat the Muslims, they immediately fall into the category of enemies and each of these combatants can be put to death." This duty applies to all Muslims. Specifically included in the category of enemies are those who give their approval to the hostilities.

This is why Osama bin Laden regarded the September 11 bombings as a legitimate act of jihad. According to Bin Laden, American people, as supporters of their government, are culpable for the acts of war perpetrated by the US against Muslims, such as the economic blockade against Iraq.

This is one of the most volatile things about the current military actions against the Taliban: radical Islam demands that Muslims regard any attacks on Muslims as an assault on the religion. Infidels have no right to wage war on Islamic peoples, under any circumstances.

Time to say 'sorry'

There is a modern moderate stream in Islam. Many Muslims are horrified by the World Trade Centre atrocities. However, even many moderates have serious difficulties with Islamic self-criticism. Islam merges faith and history, so moderates and radicals alike will insist that massacres of non-Muslims or enforced conversions have never occurred, simply because the Koran says "There is no compulsion in Islam." Similarly it is claimed that Islam forbids terrorism. The peaceful nature of Islamic community becomes a matter of doctrine, not of historical record. To sustain this myth, where people are victimized, the victim is blamed.

Hundreds of churches in Indonesia have been burned in recent decades, and thousands of Christians been killed or subjected to enforced conversion on the pain of death. But the Indonesian media tends to blame the Christians for their fate. The expression 'sectarian violence', much used by the Western media to describe such conflicts, reinforces this perception.

It is common around the world today for peoples, nations and religions to apologize for their past practices. Not so Islam. Whenever the Australian Armenian community commemorates its millions lost to Islam last century, the Turks of Australia launch a strident protest. This insults them, they say. The incident in question was a civil war, not a massacre. Inevitably Islamic protest gains more media attention than Armenian commemoration.

Something which is both a symptom and a contributing factor to this moral self-blindness is the shari'ah principle that a non-Muslim's evidence against a Muslim is not admissible in court. Non-Muslim witness is distrusted in Islam. It is a point of doctrine that Islam should not be subjected to the scrutiny of infidels.

Conclusion

Right relationship requires reconciliation, yet reconciliation is impossible without truth. And as Bishop Alexis, survivor of the Rwandan massacres, taught us, the first step to reconciliation is taking off the masks.

When victims' voices are systematically censored, bizarre beliefs and blind spots can develop. For example my wife Debby is working with a Muslim woman, a nurse who is a graduate in nursing here in Melbourne. This colleague remarked to Debby recently that 90% of Americans are Jews. She sincerely believed this to be true and would not be persuaded otherwise.

Today radical Islam displays an awesome moral superiority and self-confidence. Muslim theology teaches that moral self-confidence is a correct stance, because Islam is superior.

How will I respond to all this, as a Christian?

Some principles.

Recognize the secular Western society is intellectually ill-equipped to understand and respond to Islam. The West has trouble understanding the mechanisms of revealed religion, especially when this religion regards politics and faith as indistinguishable.

Resolve to overcome ignorance. We cannot afford to continue to ignore Islam' s history. Come to terms with the fact that vast Christian and Jewish populations declined over centuries under oppressive and humiliating regimes.

Recognize and avoid the phenomenon of appeasement. We should not make concessions to the overwhelming moral self-confidence of Islam. It is not wise to agree with President Bush, that "Islam is a religion of peace", when our motive is fear and appeasement. Bush wants to avoid a religious war. This approach is self-defeating. It detheologizes radical Islam, and makes it impossible for us to understand what we are dealing with. In fact, he is facing a religious war, whether he likes it or not.

Overcome indifference to the fate of oppressed minorities under Islamic governments. What are we doing to help the threatened Christian communities of Eastern Indonesia, our near neighbour? Or the Muslim Kurds in Iran? Or the aboriginals of Malaysia? Or the Copts of Egypt? Do we give the same attention to their human rights that the Muslim world asks us to show to the Palestinians? Because of the supreme moral self-confidence of Islam, we have to work doubly hard to give due attention to these oppressed peoples.