Loving your enemy does not mean allowing him to do what he wants or giving him what he wants. Loving him might mean doing all you can to stop him from getting what he wants.
Tens of thousands of people belonging to minority groups in the Islamic world have been murdered in recent years (see Islam's War on the West and Christians). Western governments have had (and still do have) the power to put a stop to this. So why haven't they? It's because they've been misled about the nature of the problem.
Many academics choose to focus on what we believe in common. They believe that if we simply ignore our differences the world will be a better place. It’s good to be gracious and show good will towards others. But when we are talking about beliefs, is it always a good idea to focus on commonalities? Some—in the name of peace—might say we should when talking to them, but what about when we are talking to each other about what they believe? If we are unable to look at and talk about differences in beliefs, we may come to the conclusion that an evil ideology or belief is not evil, but is in fact good, because we’ve completely ignored the questionable behaviour and words of the founder of that ideology or religion, and in the process helped spread the myth that they were a decent person (which makes their religion appear to be far better than it is). We must not enable evil beliefs to spread by dressing up those beliefs and overlooking important differences. We must look closely at and talk about the differences between different religions and beliefs. Yes, we must judge fairly and be charitable. And we must be careful not to call something which is good evil. But we must also be careful not to call something which is evil good. In our attempts to be kind, we must not be apologists for the wicked.1
The problems in the Islamic world are not being addressed (let alone discussed) because many well-intentioned but misguided academics have misled many of the worlds decision makers about the nature of the problem (see About Bernard Lewis and Is "Abrahamic" a Useful Concept?). The following is one example of how an influential scholar from Yale has misled much of the public and many of our leaders. It is an extract from chapter 16 of Which God? by Mark Durie. (Volf made the mistake of misrepresenting Durie's position so the response is warranted. See footnote 2.) It is not wise to dress up the persecutors and make them look like saints.
“One example of Volf’s blind spots –in his peripheral field of vision, one might say –is the claim that Islam rejects suicide bombing. In a brief discussion of martyrdom operations, Volf cites the Amman letter to Pope Benedict(60) as evidence that ‘normative’ Islam condemns ‘suicide terrorism’. (61) The Amman letter was written to Pope Benedict by Muslim scholars after he gave a lecture in Regensburg which criticized Islam.
Volf’s citation of the Amman letter is in spite of the fact there is no reference to or discussion of suicide terrorism in that letter.
Volf also seems to be unaware that among the Amman letter’s signatories were several eminent Muslim scholars who have endorsed what they prefer to call ‘martyrdom operations’:
- Shaikh Ali Jumu’ah, Grand Mufti of Egypt and Amman letter signatory, has stated, ‘The one who carries out Fedaii [martyrdom] operations against the Zionists and blows himself up is, without a doubt, a Shahid [martyr] because he is defending his homeland against the occupying enemy who is supported by superpowers such as the U.S. and Britain.’ (62)
- The second signatory to the Amman letter, Sheikh al-Buti of Syria, has said martyrdom operations are completely legitimate if the motive is to spite the enemy. (63)
- Another signatory, Shaykh Ahmad Al-Khalili, Grand Mufti of Oman, has made the same point: ‘We are quite sure that the Jews are in their way to extinction, this is the promise of Allah ... Suicide is human boredom of life and his intention to kill himself, those Palestinian mujahideen are not bored with life and their intention was not to kill themselves: instead, they wanted to spite their enemy.’ (64)
In reality a great many leading Muslim scholars endorse ‘martyrdom operations’, or what Volf calls ‘suicide terrorism.’ (65) They would all agree with Volf that Islam forbids suicide, but consider that if the intention of a bomber is to attack a legitimate enemy, blowing oneself up is not considered to be suicide. When Volf says that normative Islam rejects ‘suicide terrorism’ he misunderstands what Muslim scholars mean when they refer to ‘suicide’, and overlooks their glorification of ‘martyrdom operations’.”( Which God?, Mark Durie)2
Unfortunately for the persecuted, scholars like Volf have done much to help shape the opinions of many decision makers in the west. (The scholar who led the most leaders astray after 9/11 was Bernard Lewis. Early on in his career he strongly criticised the totalitarian nature of Islam3 but discovered that if he continued to criticise Islam he would not be permitted to do research in many countries in the Islamic world. See About Bernard Lewis and "Bernard Lewis is the Pied Piper of Islamic Confusion" by Andrew Bostom.)
It's good to seek peace, but it's not good to lie about the nature of the problem and the level of deception we are dealing with. If such lies are not addressed, they will lead to more tension, more violence, and a very long and bloody war of attrition.
Volf shows good will towards Muslim leaders. And that is a good thing. But he is foolish if he believes whatever they tell him. What he probably doesn't know is that the Muslim Brotherhood have infiltrated the interfaith movement. The Brotherhood's goal in the interfaith movement is to silence those who would speak up for persecuted minorities in the Islamic world. (Some people really can get away with murder if they're nice. See Silencing the Persecuted.)
Unfortunately some ministers, priests and rabbis value friendly interaction with the local imam so much they dare not make mention of the injustices others are facing in Islamic countries. They dare not make things "uncomfortable." (One of the reasons many of our leaders are easily deceived is they are holding on to the myth of Islam's tolerant past. See The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise by Dario Fernandez-Morera and The Third Choice by Mark Durie. For more about how the Brotherhood are using the Interfaith movement see the appendix to Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. For their political goals, see here.)
Volf calls himself a Christian; perhaps he would do well to remember the following. The early Christian apologists wrote to Roman governors and in those letters spoke out against the unjust persecution of Christians. If more of our scholars and leaders wrote to the imams who are responsible for these atrocities and demanded that they treat minorities fairly we'd all be better off.4
If we ignore the cries of the oppressed, the day may come when we cry out for help and no one answers.5
--
1. Imagine how that might have affected the war effort if when the allies spoke about Hitler and the Nazis if they always chose to focus on the good things that Hitler said and did?
2. This is only one of many errors and misrepresentations by Volf; there are so many that Durie had to devote the whole of chapter 16 to addressing them. The following is from chapter 9, "A Question of Mistaken Identity," of Which God?
“Miroslav Volf, in his book Allah: A Christian response, misrepresented my views as follows:
[Some people] concentrate on the differences in the description of God and consider commonalities largely irrelevant. Let Australian scholar and vicar Mark Durie represent this group. ... He maintains that if you don’t have a complete [Volf’s emphasis] match between descriptions of God in Islam and Christianity, you don’t have identity. To find out whether the God of the Qur’an is a genuine or false God, the procedure should be the same as when trying to figure out whether a banknote is genuine or counterfeit. If there are any [Volf’s emphasis] differences from the banknote you know is genuine, then it’s counterfeit.’34
My position, made clear in the earlier edition of this book and again here is that, while there are significant similarities and also many significant differences between Allah and YHWH, what is important to consider is whether there are deeper, fundamental differences in the attributes Allah and YHWH.
Volf rates his own ‘commonalities’ approach as morally superior, citing the injunction of St Paul that ‘Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.’ (1 Corinthians 13:6):
Those who take the ‘differences’ approach are a bit like those who rejoice in wrongdoing. Those who take the ‘commonalities’ approach are a bit like those who rejoice in the truth. The first are like a nagging partner, who seems not to see any good in the other and always complains about anything that’s wrong. The second are like a generous and wise lover, who celebrates the good while not being blind to what is wrong.35
However it is a fundamental error to equate attending to differences with finding fault. To do so sets love and truth against each other. What Paul is saying is that genuine love does not gloss over the truth, even when the truth is painful and difficult. It is thoroughly Biblical to seek to understand differences and acknowledge the truth about them. Genuine love rejoices with such truth, and does not overlook differences through inattention or wishful thinking.
One of the arguments Volf makes is that the ‘differences’ approach must necessarily conclude that ‘devout Jews worship a different God than do Christians.’36 Here, and in the previous edition of this book, I take pains to emphasize that the attributes of Allah contrast with those of God as attested in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. What Judaism and Christianity have in common in their understanding of God is what marks them out as distinct from Islam.
In Chapter 16 I offer a critique of Volf’s Allah.”
Durie, Mark. Which God?: Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam . Deror Books. Kindle Edition.
3. See Bernard Lewis' 1954 article “Communism and Islam”
Note: Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace. And it is a religion of peace. But what Muslims mean by the word “peace” in the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace” is very different to what non-Muslims think it means. So, what do Muslims mean when they say Islam is a religion of peace? See here.
4. They should also publicly confront the leaders of Islamic countries and demanded that non-Muslims in their countries be treated as equals.
5. I’m not saying we should, or should not be fighting Islamic countries, terrorist organisations, or anything like that. What I am saying is we should at least understand what we are dealing with. That is why I recommend that Muslims and non-Muslims read the following books in this order.
The Third Choice by Mark Durie
After Saturday Comes Sunday: Understanding the Christian Crisis in the Middle East by Elizabeth Kendal
The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS by Robert Spencer
It’s All About Muhammad by F.W. Burleigh
Violence in the Name of God: Mark Durie Answers Twelve Questions about Islam and Christianity
What Does Charm Tell You About Someone's Beliefs?
"America is More Islamic Than My Home Country..."
The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam
How Should Unbelievers Be Treated?
The Persecution of Christians in the Islamic World
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights