ArchiveReligion

A double Standard: Driving Jews out of the Islamic World

Between 1948 and 1970 850,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were driven out of Arab countries, where until that time they had lived peacefully for hundreds of years. While Palestinians are mentioned daily in the media and the call is made for grandchildren and great grandchildren of once displaced Palestinians to be returned to their homeland, no one speaks about displaced Jews any more. The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, which was founded in 1976, is not taken seriously anywhere, although many of the people concerned live involuntarily in Israel or the USA. This is a double standard.

The displacement of the long-established Christian minority in the Islamic world is also proceeding at a rapid pace. These people have often been longer in the countries than Islam has even existed. The devastating results of George W. Bush’s Iraq war on the Christian community were predictable – as the Islamic terrorists cannot win against the Americans, they are looking for the only attainable goal as a small victory, the peaceful Christian untrained in defense – to that degree the terrorists and the Iraqi government, with the latter doing nothing to oppose the terrorists, continue what has been underway for 100 years.

A similar tragedy is often forgotten in this connection: the displacement of Jews from Islamic countries. All in all their number is smaller than the number of Christians, but their percentage is higher, mostly close to 100%. For centuries Northern Africa, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq all had prospering Jewish populations, which have in the meantime practically disappeared.

In 1948 135,000 Jews lived in Iraq. Today that number is 10!

Suicide Attacks in Islam

The fundamentalism debate often makes the incorrect assumption that violent, religious fundamentalists want a return to a premodern era. Journalists, who so eagerly want to link everything and everyone to fundamentalism, take little notice of what is scientifically demonstrable or not. However, theories on fundamentalism are often established in the ivory tower before any sort of concrete movements has been investigated in detail. Actually, fundamentalist movements are often very modern, in that they develop completely new theological concepts and put them into action. The hope that in time they would become ‘more modern,‘ and for that reason more peaceful, is illusory.

The justification of suicide attacks in Islamism is a modern development that continues. Indeed there used to be the concept of martyrs as warriors who died in Jihad, which is a concept that has never existed in Christianity (though it has been found in the nationalistic garb of European states or, for instance, in Japan in world wars). But it has always been a war called for by a leader – for instance a caliph or a sultan. One died in battle against unbelievers, and one naturally tried to live as long as possible. This is to say that the individual did not commit suicide. (Exceptions were assassins between the 11th and 13th centuries, for which no line leads to the present.)

Terror attacks during the time of Yassir Arafat were hardly able to be justified religiously and did not consist of an actual suicide attack. The concept of the suicide attack is something that has progressively developed in modern Islamism in increasingly intensive phases, which anyone who has followed the last 25 years of reports in the media can understand.

Phases in the Development of the Theology and Practice of Suicide Attacks in the last 25 Years

1. Jihad no longer has to be called for. Rather, military Jihad is a permanent condition against unbelievers. An individuals can designate himself, or a small group can designate themselves. Whoever dies in the process goes to paradise as a martyr.
2. An individual is allowed to kill himself, if in the process unbelievers are also killed.
3. Male children are also able to be suicide attackers (initially in the Intifada)
4. An individual is allowed to do the same if in the process, as collateral damage, Muslims also die (this occurred initially in Israel, then on September 11, 2001).
5. An individual is allowed to do the same if in the process almost exclusively or exclusively Muslims die but unbelievers are disquieted (initially in Iraq).
6. Women can also be suicide attackers who up till now have only appeared as proud mothers of suicide attackers (a very recent phenomenon).
7. In the most immediate past girls have emerged as suicide attackers. In short: a girl who with an explosive kills other Muslims and, for that reason, is lauded as a martyr used to be unthinkable in Islam. It is, rather, a completely new theological and practical development that has little in common with premodern Islam.

Who is scared of Evangelical Terrorists?

Against maliciously equating Evangelicals with Islamic Terrorists

Within three days I found the following randomly chosen reports about Islamists, which were published almost simultaneously in practically all major media in Germany: in the Pakistan capital of Islamabad, an Islamic suicide bomber had killed four UN employees at the local headquarters of the World Food Program when a bomb he was carrying exploded.

• For an entire day Islamists paralyzed the headquarters of the Pakistani Army by placing it under fire and taking hostages. Now 30,000 Pakistani soldiers are attempting to move against the Islamists and compensate for the disgrace.
• A one-hour German language video with an Islamic group tied to Al Qaeda, in which German and German-speaking Islamists threatened Germany, shows background pictures of terror training camps in which numerous blond or European looking children are conspicuous.
• In Yemen the government is fighting a desperate battle against the Islamic Al Qaeda network, which wants to expand Yemen into its new operational headquarters. Although the future of Islamic terrorism could be decided here, Yemen is missing international support.
• In Hamburg a ten-man Islamic terror cell that traveled in March to Hindu Kush was discovered. In Germany there is estimated to be around 80 trained Islamic terrorists at present living in the country.
• In Berlin in one fell swoop 155 officials were searching through apartments in order to move against a group of 15 Islamists who are suspected of planning attacks against Russia and who wanted to defect.
• A book about honor killings that was about to be released was withdrawn at the last minute by the publisher Droste Verlag due to fear of acts of vengeance by Islamists.

That was all just within three days!

And Evangelicals are compared with such Islamists in the sme media? Absurd! Unfounded! Malevolent! Even to compare my peaceful Muslim neighbors with such terrorists would be a disgrace, but peaceful, often pacifistically oriented Evangelicals?

Evangelicals are allowed to pay required fees for German state TV ARD and ZDF television so that with conspiratoranial means they can ‘prove’ and advance what cannot be demonstrated – that Evangelicals are a type of Christian Islamists. The fact is: there are no Evangelical terrorists, no suicide attackers, and no Evangelical network which is planning to conduct something that brings death and violence. Anything else is virtual nonsense and the worst type of slander.

Where is it necessary to search for weapons in Evangelical churches? Where are Evangelical terror camps being maintained, army headquarters attacked, and skirmishes conducted against 30,000 soldiers?

Who is scared of traveling to a particular country for vacation because Evangelicals live there? Where are the Evangelicals who are threatening journalists who hold dissenting ideas or threatening their families? Why do Evangelicals not come under the rubric of constitutional protection, either in Germany or anywhere else in the world?

And in addition to this: in spite of the non-stop horror reports about Islamism, we are – and rightly so – repeatedly reminded and even remind ourselves again and again that we have to distinguish between Islamists and peaceful Muslims. For once just consider the thought that the 1.8 million Evangelicals in Germany would want to limit freedom with violence. And while no one has witnessed anything like that, at the same time several thousand Islamists keep us on edge?

In the case of 400 million Evangelicals, in contrast, it seems as if one does not have to differentiate between Terrorists (wherever they might be) and the millions and millions of peaceful adherents. One negative example is enough to make everyone responsible for their counterparts! Even if there were to be one single Evangelical terrorist or an individual who even dreamed of being a terrorist, one would still have to clearly distinguish between that individual and the millions and millions of peaceful Evangelicals.

One more question to pose to ARD and ZDF television: Is it not also an aspect of religious freedom that one is to be protected from governmental and semi-governmental institutions? Does our state media know that there is no persecution of minorities where the media is not playing a central role? And does our state media know that nowadays it is often the media who more than anyone else decides which minorities are seen as victims and which ones are leprous and themselves held accountable for the situation?

Muslims: always Victims and never Offenders?

According to media reports (for instance here or here), the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan offered protection  to the President of Sudan, who was scheduled to come to Istanbul for a summit of the Organization of Islamic States. The Turkish Prime Minister subsequently withdrew that offer. The background is that Interpol and the International Criminal Court have issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan for crimes of genocide, and the President of Sudan is therefore being sought for arrest. The Turkish Prime Minister declared that the President of Sudan may not be arrested anyway, a statement he substantiated by declaring that Sudan is an Islamic state and that Islamic states are not in a position to commit crimes such as genocide.

In terms of genocide, he did mention Israel’s actions towards Palestinians as well as China’s actions towards the Uigurs. According to Erdogan, 1,500 people have been killed in Gaza, while the UN accuses Sudan of being responsible for the murder of 300,000 people!

A Muslim leader can by definition not be a criminal, but does this apply even in the case where the evidence is so overwhelming? If Muslims are the victims, is there immediate mention of genocide? It does not appear to be coincidental that China is accused of genocide against the (Muslim) Uigurs but apparently not against the (Buddhist) Tibetans! If that is applied to history, that means that past faults committed by Muslims are denied, while faults committed by non-Muslims are still triumphantly invoked centuries after they were committed. On the one hand, this mentality fits to Christians, who work through their history self-critically and admit many faults (and that should not change). It also fits with historians critical of Christianity, who still preferably only itemize Christian offenses (that, however, should change!).

This is in line with what Islamic states, under the leadership of Pakistan, are presently seeking to implement. In the face of massive resistance from western countries, several votes resulted in a Defamation of Religion Resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council being successfully passed, which addresses what until now has not yet been binding international law: to view a critique of Islam as a human rights violation. This is due to the fact that in the last resolution, from March 2009, religion in general is mentioned but only Islam is mentioned by name.

Islam is allowed to criticize whomever it wishes however it wishes, but no one is allowed to criticize Islam – no matter how peacefully, friendly, and objectively this is done? Therefore: all rights for us, and no rights for others? No, that cannot be! I wrote my book Islam: A Stereotypical Enemy (Feindbild Islam) protecting Muslims from slander by rightwing Christian groups. because from a Christian point of view the slander of others is always wrong, not only when it has to do with our own religion or when it only affects our own people. What is at issue is ‘all rights for all people.”

Just so that no one misunderstands me or accuses me of blanket condemnation: This year I was in Instanbul with Turkish professors from all over the country and from different fields of study (including Islamic theology!) who stand up for religious freedom and were appalled to report about the Islamification of cities and provinces that are under the leadership of Justice and Development party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, or AKP) politicians. Without any “academic fluff,” Turkish families who have visited us at home, as well as politicians with Turkish heritage, have told us the same here in Bonn. By far not all Turks think like the Turkish Premier Minister. As far as I am concerned, I have no interest in increasing any tensions. The World Evangelical Alliance has its own taskforcefor peace building, which is strongly engaged in areas heading towards states of crisis and is engagned in moderating peace between Muslim and Christian communities. We also assist people in personally getting to know each other in a way that goes beyond religious boundaries and promotes their working together for peace. In spite of this it still has to be pointed out that internationally the difficulties with Islam are becoming more intense, when simply by definition it is decreed that Muslims are always the victims and never the offenders.

Hope founded on Salvation – A Bible Study by the Pope

In his third year as Pope, Benedict XVI set forth his second encyclical “Spe Salvi.”, published 30^th of November, 2007 (www.vatican.va) Traditionally, the first two Latin words of an encyclical provide the topic of the encyclical, and in this case it means “in this hope we are saved,” which is a quote from Paul’s Letter to the Romans (8:24). In 50 numbered sections the Pope unfolds a Biblical teaching on hope.

From numerous New Testament texts the Pope demonstrates that hope is a central component of faith and that people without God are people without a sustainable hope. He expends considerable time on New Testament texts which say that hope does not rest upon an internal subjective attitude, but rather on objective facts. He just as soundly highlights that hope and salvation in the New Testament are not to be understood purely individualistically. It is rather the case that Christians in community with Christ and as God’s people have hope.

Subsequently, the Pope delineated between the Christian understanding of hope and the subjective conception of hope of the French Revolution, of industrial optimism, of Marxism, and of Humanism and calls for a long overdue ‘self-criticism of modern times.’ “It is not science that saves mankind. Mankind will be saved by love.” (12) Prayer and undergoing suffering belong to the practice of a belief in hope, to which the moralism of atheism and of progress ideologies has no answers.

The encyclical will supposedly not be counted as one of the great encyclicals that will still be quoted one hundred years from now. This is due to the fact that the encyclical neither announces a surprising change within the Catholic Church, nor does it take a stance with respect to a highly controversial topic. Calmly and matter-of-factly it refers to the large difference between Christian hope and the missing or illusory and worldly hope of Western ideas of progress. It highlights that Christian hope is only thinkable because there is salvation in Christ and because there are transcendent linchpins beyond earthly time, such as the final judgment, salvation, and eternal life.

However, in another aspect the encyclical contrasts to earlier encyclicals, namely through its strong concentration on the interpretation of New Testament texts and the practical absence of typical Catholic points of view. The encyclical has this in common with the book the Pope wrote about Jesus, although the book was published expressly as private remarks. This time, however, the encyclical is a doctrinal document.

In the first 47 paragraphs of the encyclical there is no statement that would be conspicuous were it to be heard coming from an Evangelical pulpit. In Pope Johannes Paul II’s encyclicals it was exactly the opposite. One could find almost no sentence where Mary, the salvific role of the church, or another Catholic feature was not mentioned. In paragraph 48 prayers for the dead are briefly mentioned. Maria is not appealed to until the final paragraphs 49-50. And whoever reads this long address to Maria will astonishingly determine that it consists practically of a compilation of New Testament statements about Maria and Jesus. A teaching about Maria that is particularly Catholic is not mentioned. The final paragraphs also seem to indicate that the curia required their inclusion so that the encyclical would not sound completely un-Catholic.

(The systematic theologian and religious sociologist Prof. Thomas Schirrmacher has authored numerous books regarding Catholic teaching as well as the book Hope for Europe.)