We live in a world that is saturated in information, misinformation, and conflicting voices. Seeing God’s will done ‘here on earth as in heaven’ involves having a Christian voice in public debates and in stories covered in news and other media. But when Christians don’t agree, what then?
Speaking about issues, whether in formal public statements or informal chats to friends, involves particular risks for Christians, including failing to correctly represent God’s will, and undermining our Christian witness.
So how do we recognise a genuine Christian voice in the news or public debate? When Christians go into politics, or engage in lobby groups, or claim to be public watchdogs, or when they speak on public issues from the pulpit, how can we know that they have a proper biblical view on any given issue, balancing public and private morality, and not confusing the roles of state and the individual? How do we know they are communicating the mind, and heart, of God?
This short paper attempts to highlight some of the challenges we face in hearing God’s voice today, and lay out some principles which characterize an authentic Christian voice.
Challenges
The unprecedented profusion of voices – The internet and social media have enabled everyone with a computer or smartphone to search, receive, and broadcast a greater array of comment than has ever been possible before. “Friends” (and others) post links to articles on topics and by authors we have little or no knowledge of.
The nature of broadcast media – Within the constraints of time and budgets, radio, TV, and news media do a reasonable job of presenting information to us. But commercial media outlets have to produce what sells. Regrettably, all too often this is entertainment or controversy based stories, where the popular and extreme win out over the informed and moderate. . The news cycle demands quick responses on issues, which favours those who comment immediately (even if what they say is wrong), over those who need time to develop a more accurate response. It also favours simple, strong, statements, over more complex, nuanced, ones, even if that reflects the true picture.
Time – None of us has the time to check all the information we receive, so we take a lot on trust. But if the people or sources we are getting our information from have not had the time (or inclination) to check the accuracy of the information, we can find ourselves passing on information which is not true. Either that, or we become cynical and don’t believe anything we hear – (which creates its own problems!).
Preconceived ideas – We all hold views on a wide range of topics. These views come from our culture, our history, our churches, our families and friends, and they become part of our identity. Wisdom tells us that there is good and bad within all of these areas, and that not all of the views we hold now, or will hold in the future, are correct. But it is very hard to change our views, even when they are wrong. It is natural to process information that agrees with our preconceptions more readily that information that challenges them.
Complexity of public issues – Most issues do not lend themselves to simplistic solutions. Issues like religiously inspired terrorism, human sexuality and relationships, welfare and poverty, and criminal justice, certainly don’t. Even experts have different ideas on how to understand and address complex issues. Non-professionals joining the discussion often add more heat than light.
The Bible! – Even though some people don’t like the fact, and some people try to deny it, the reality is that the Bible does not give simple, clear, prescriptive answers to many of the issues we face today. If it did, there may not be as many divisions in the church as what we have.
Anti-Christian sentiment – This should not be overstated, but there is a small section of society which is active in trying to limit the role of religion in general and Christianity in particular in society. When people or groups identified as Christian speak or behave badly, this can be a significant encouragement to those seeking to privatise religious faith.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics – Numbers are often used to support arguments. The only problem is that statistics are seldom as straightforward as they appear (or are made to appear). Also many people have little understanding of how statistics work.
With all this in mind, what are some of the principles that should characterise an authentic Christian voice in the public discourse?
Principles
Quite simply, the first and most important principle is to ask “Is what the speaker says actually true?” Or do they exaggerate or overstate the truth? Do they leave out relevant facts to give a slanted view of truth? . Jesus said “I am the Truth”. Speaking untruth, no matter how sincerely one believes it, undermines our Christian witness and is not of God.
Are the speaker’s words faithful to the Spirit of Christ? Given the Great Commandments and Great Commission imperatives (to love, witness, lead people to Christ, and make disciples) as embodied in Christ, do the speaker’s words lead non-believers towards Christ or turn them away? Do they communicate love and compassion or judgement and condemnation?
Think about the Golden Rule – how would you feel or react if the speaker’s comments were made about you?
Are the speaker’s arguments reasonable and logical? . This diagram of The Ten Commandments of Logic offers a good summary of some logical fallacies which cannot reflect the mind of Christ, yet appear often in public statements. . Carefully check out your favourite spokespeople to see if any of these apply.
Authority – If the speaker is identified publicly as Christian, what is their Christian accountability? What are their credentials? Are they respected by other Christian leaders? Are there other well qualified voices that express a different view? . The World Evangelical Alliance is one useful reference point. The WEA was founded in 1846 and is made up of biblically orthodox, evangelical, theologians, leaders, specialists with PhDs, and practitioners, from 129 countries and covering 20 specialist areas including theology, religious liberty, and mission. This does not mean that when the WEA makes a statement that it is automatically right. But the breadth and depth of knowledge and experience behind the WEA does mean that it should be given the consideration it deserves.
Does the speaker recognise the difference between church and state, between morality and law, and the limits of what the law can achieve?
Does the speaker recognise that modern society is not the same as Israel in the Old Testament or the church in the New Testament? That ideas and words relevant for one group may not be for another?
Is the speaker seeking to have Christian morality imposed on society by law? God gives humans free-will to follow His ways or not. We should be careful therefore about trying to compel people to act ‘morally’ by using the force of law.
Limits to the efficacy of law:
Professor Ian Harper from the University of Melbourne and Centre for Independent Studies has said, “It is important to recognize the limited capacity of the state to promote moral behaviour in human beings. Too often our energies and imaginations have focused on the state as a means of compelling our moral vision. We should realize that, beyond the core area of justice, the power of the state to do good and bring about a moral society is by no means unambiguous. For one thing, state-enforced morality often fuels resentment and breeds its own resistance” (emphasis added)[i]
Professor Warren Brookbanks from the University of Auckland, has commented in a similar vein, “… the crisis in families is not something that can be solved by more regulation … there are, I would suggest, real dangers in assuming that the law and public opinion are the best agencies through which the “rehabilitation” of marriage can be achieved”[ii]
Some topics (e.g. terrorism) have the potential to spread fear. Other topics (e.g. sexuality issues) have the potential to marginalise people. The nature of the Gospel is to promote love not fear, to include people not marginalise them. The hard words of Jesus were directed at religious leaders who were guilty of doing those sorts of things, and he stood alongside those who were marginalised or regarded as sinners.
Respect – The fruit of the Spirit includes gentleness, and Paul instructs Timothy to be ready to give reasons for the hope he has, but to do so with “gentleness and respect”. The combative nature of public communication is a particular snare for Christians who engage in this arena. The majority of people in the audience for mass communication are non-believers who we want to see, hear, and receive the Good News of Christ. In addition, when comments are made about another person or group, are the other person/group’s views represented fairly.
The chief end or purpose of mankind, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever”. Let us be committed to glorifying God, and being known as people who, like Jesus, are “filled with grace and truth” (John 1:14).
[i] “Christian Morality and Market Capitalism: Friends or Foes?”, Professor Ian Harper, Centre for Independent Studies, full text at http://www.cis.org.au/
Harper goes on to say … “The lessons of the Prohibition Era in the United States should not be forgotten. Moreover, we should remember Thomas Jefferson’s caution: ‘Never give power to a good man that you would not give to an evil man.’ If we rely too heavily on the state and bolster it, with a view to deploying its coercive power to our purposes, we may regret it when at some point the state begins to enforce values antipathetic to our own”
(Professor Ian Harper holds the Sidney Myer Chair of Commerce and Business Administration at the Melbourne Business School within the University of Melbourne. He is also Assistant Director and Dean of Faculty at the School)
[ii] “A Christian Perspective on Marriage, Family, and the Law”, W J Brookbanks LLM, BD, Associate Professor of Law, University of Auckland
Video above: Presidential contender Marco Rubio responds to atheist’s question
When a self-described atheist asked Marco Rubio this week how a candidate who spends so much time talking about religious liberty and “pandering” to evangelical voters could possibly represent him, Rubio delivered one of the most articulate responses a Republican politician ever has to such a question.
Rubio remains well below business mogul Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz in most polling, both nationally and in early-voting states. But with some of the GOP’s large base of evangelics questioning the sincerity of Trump’s faith, Rubio’s responses to questions like this could compel them to give his candidacy another look.
Check out the exchange in the video above. A transcript of his remarks is below.
Alabama’s primary is set to take place March 1st.
QUESTIONER: I’m an atheist voter. I represent millions of atheists and non-theists around the country. We’re one of the fastest growing voting blocs. You said earlier you want to stand up for religious freedom, and all of that. My question is, for atheist voters who are looking for somebody who will uphold their rights as Americans and not pander to a certain religious group… how do you plan on upholding our rights?… There are talks in our community about you running as pastor-in-chief, rather than commander-in-chief, so I’m curious to get your thoughts.
RUBIO:
Well, first of all as I said during my speech, you have a right to believe whatever you want. You have a right to believe in nothing at all, you most certainly have that right. By the way, I’m a Christian. I can’t force you to be a Christian. Christianity is a free gift. We Christians believe that salvation is a free gift that has to be willfully accepted. You can’t force it on people. So you have a right to believe whatever you want, and I congratulate you on believing whatever you want.
I’m gonna share my faith, especially when I’m asked, because my faith influences who I am and every aspect of my life.
First of all… If you don’t believe the Judeo-Christian values influenced America, then you don’t know history… This nation was founded on the principle that our rights come from our Creator. If there’s no creator then where did your rights come from? And so, that’s why it’s important for us to understand that. And we’re going to protect the rights of Americans to continue to believe that.
We’re also gonna have a country where no one is forced to violate their conscience. Which means no one is gonna force you to believe in God, but no one is going to force me to stop talking about God. I’m not going to force you to pray, I not going to force you to go to church, I’m not going to espouse beliefs that you don’t have. But no one is going to take away my right and your right to live out the teachings of your faith, no one, when I’m President.
And I want to be very clear about something. Not only am I a Christian and not only am I influence by my faith, but it is the single greatest influence in my life. And from that I’ll never hide, and I’ll tell you why. Because I know if I’m lucky, I get to live to be 85 or 90, depending on what life expectancy becomes with all this new medicine. But I’m more interested in eternity and the ability to live forever with my Creator, that you don’t believe in but I do and that’s what I aspire to more than anything else.
That’s why I believe the most important job I have is the job of a father and a husband, more important than even the Presidency. Because I only have a handful of years to teach and instruct my children with the right values. Not just to allow them to succeed in life but, more importantly, to be able to accept the gift of eternity. I believe that God, our Creator became a man and he came down to earth and lived among us — suffered like a man would — emotions, physical suffering, emotional suffering, pain, illness, sickness, sadness. And then he died. And he died to remove the sins that we couldn’t remove up to that point. They could only be covered, but they couldn’t be removed. And as a result I now have the free gift or the opportunity to live forever with my Creator. And I believe that passionately and it influences every aspect of my life.
And I respect very much your willingness to stand up and ask that question because I know you’re in a small minority of people here that share that view that you have. But you have a right to it and that’s what makes us such a great country.
I would say this though, you shouldn’t be worried about my faith influencing me. In fact, I think you should hope my faith influences me. Here’s why: you know what my faith teaches me? My faith teaches me that I have an obligation to care for the less fortunate. My faith teaches me that I have an obligation to love my neighbor. My faith teaches me that I have an obligation for those who are hungry, to help try and feed them — for those who are naked, to help clothe them. My faith teaches me that I need to minister to those in prison. My faith teaches me that if I want to serve Jesus, I have to serve each other. And I think that you should hope that influences me. I know it’s made this a greater country.
(including a Muslim’s Response to Critiques of Islam)
Janet Daley has called ISIS a ‘death cult’
Every time there is an international terrorist attack these days it seems to generate a spate of articles and blogs about the connection between Islam and religious violence.
Durie’s idea that there is a rational motivation behind the attacks, that the terrorists were justifying their actions based on passages from the Qur’an and other sources, is beyond dispute. But any inference that their interpretation is the ‘correct’ one surely goes a step too far.
Any inference in the blog was made totally explicit by a commentator on one of the sites who stated “the texts which Glyn Carpenter (sic) dismisses in Suras 2, 5, 8, and 9 are eternal truths for every true Muslim for all time”.
(In case the reader is not familiar with Suras 2, 5, 8, and 9, they contain the frequently quoted violent texts from the Qur’an).
As National Director of NZ Christian Network (the NZ member and representative of the World Evangelical Alliance) this creates four problems for me:
We would not accept people from other religions making such sweeping declarations about Christianity or the evangelical stream within Christianity. In fact, a few years back the WEA issued a statement which, in the face of negative stereotypes of evangelicalism, said “we reserve for ourselves the right to define who is an evangelical”.
It is not me that is dismissing these texts – it is a large numbers of Muslim scholars who argue that they are not being interpreted in their proper context. I am simply drawing attention to that fact.
When I dialogue with Muslim leaders who tell me this radical interpretation does not reflect the real Islam, I either accept what they say, or else I have to imagine (as another commentator said) that they are ignorant of their own religion, backslidden, or attempting to deceive me. (This is vaguely reminiscent of CS Lewis’s ‘Lord, Liar, Lunatic’ trilemma). Frankly I find the second option insulting and absurd.
If, as I believe, this kind of sweeping critique of Islam goes too far, we run a serious risk of alienating Muslims in our communities, possibly radicalising some, we are not on the side of truth, and we undermine the opportunity for relationship and dialogue which are necessary if we are ever to persuade people of our convictions.
Shortly after Mark Durie’s blog was reposted in NZ I received the letter below from Hazim Arafeh, President of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ). I have not yet met Hazim personally, but I have worked with his two predecessors Javed Khan and Anwar Ghani.
I have not edited the letter. It contains some raw emotion (which is evident) and it goes too far in my view in judging the motivations of people who comment on Islam. But if read with charity and with empathy for what it feels like to be part of a minority who feel they are regularly mischaracterised, I think you will find the letter useful.
For anyone who is uncertain about the position I represent on NZ Christian Network’s behalf, I close my introduction to Hazim’s letter by stating – for the record:
As well as points of similarity, I believe that there are also significant points of difference between Christianity and Islam
I seek to point out these differences gracefully and respectfully whenever it is appropriate
While I can see some value in the currently topical ‘Christians and Muslims worship the same god’ discussion, the fact that Christians worship Jesus as God and Muslims don’t, seems to me to place an obvious limit on how far that discussion can be taken.
Glyn Carpenter
National Director, NZ Christian Network
A Letter from the President of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ)
Introduction
As an organisation that has ties with other groups of diverse religion, the piece entitled “Paris attacks were not ‘nihilism’ but sacred strategy” was recently brought to our attention by a concerned Christian associate, who correctly understood it to be misrepresentative of Islamic beliefs and values resulting from the authors lack of basic Islamic knowledge, which we agree with. The piece in question lacks understanding on a number of levels including the core texts of Islam and how they are to be interpreted, a blinkered understanding of history, and inability to differentiate between Daesh and Orthodox Islam, and an attempt to create an ‘us v them’ dichotomy based on the widely discredited ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis by Samuel Huntington.
The assertions presented in the piece in question are very common misconceptions, which are often used in an attempt to discredit Islam, and as such we have decided to release a statement addressing a number of these issues as a general document for future referral.
The irony of the specific piece in question, as well as most Islamophobic literature, is that it in fact adopts the same distorted mind-set of those within Daesh; Islamophobes and extremists are one in the same and their willful misunderstanding of the religion is blatant. Both parties appear to be driven more by their own whims, agendas, and money (see the book ‘The Islamophobia Industry’) than they are by a desire for truth and understanding.
This in itself is a tragedy because the need to learn and understand is the only thing that will curtail the twin evils of extremism and islamophobia – both of which have a symbiotic relationship that feed off, and benefit from each other. We will proceed in addressing just a few of the errors apparent in this article, in order to enlighten and broaden the understanding of these issues. Unfortunately we are not able to address all the points as there are simply too many to errors to address in a succinct manner, and instead I would invite the author and his readership to approach people of knowledge within the Islamic community to clarify any questions they may have about Islam.
Islam Is Against Killing Civilians
The piece in question states that “ISIS does not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Its actions and strategies are based upon medieval Islamic laws of jihad, which make no use of the modern Western concept of ‘civilian’”. The fact is however, that Islam has been in possession a code of combat outlined in the Quran and Sunnah – including the protection of civilians and the immunity and protection of non-combatants – well over a thousand years before the conception of the Geneva Convention, the principles of which are outlined briefly below:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not love transgressors”. [Quran 2:190]
Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) explained this verse saying: لَا تَقْتُلُوا النِّسَاءَ وَلَا الصِّبْيَانَ وَلَا الشَّيْخَ الْكَبِيرَ وَلَا مَنْ أَلْقَى إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ وَكَفَ يَدَهُ فَإِنْ فَعَلْتُمْ هَذَا فَقَدَ اعْتَدَيْتُمْ
“Do not kill women, or children, or old men, or whoever comes to you with peace and he restrains his hand from fighting, for if you did that you would certainly have transgressed”. [Tafseer At-Tabari 2:190]
Evidence from the Hadith
Regarding Women and Children:
The killing of women and children in conflict was explicitly prohibited by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As reported by Abdullah ibn Umar: “In one of Prophet Muhammad’s battles, a woman was found dead. Upon this, the Prophet prohibited killing women and children in battles.” [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim].
“Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” [Sunan Abu Dawud]
Regarding Workers and Servants:
These are people who are not actively involved in warfare. Whilst they may live in a state that are at war with the Muslims, their lives are not to be taken. When engaged in conflict, the Prophet Muhammad explicitly commanded the Muslim soldiers: “Do not kill the workers or the servants.” The lives of those not actively involved in conflict and warfare are protected in Islam.
Regarding the Mentally Ill
The mentally ill and the senile cannot be held accountable during conflict, and therefore their lives are protected. Narrated by Ali ibn Abu Talib (May Allah be please with him), the Prophet Muhammad commanded: “Three kinds of people are not responsible for what they do. A sleeping person until he wakes; a senile or insane person until they regain their mental health; and children until they grow up.”
Regarding Elderly People
It has been forbidden to kill those who are very old and they are to be regarded the same protected status as children. Narrated by Anas ibn Malik, the Prophet Muhammad would state the following every time he dispatched an army: “Set out in the name of Allah. Fight for the religion of Allah and in the name of Allah. Do not kill the elderly.” [Sunan Abu Dawud]
Regarding Non-Muslim Clergymen
Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: Prophet Muhammad would command the Muslim army, “…Do not kill the children or the members of the monasteries”. [Musnad Ahmad]
Regarding the Protection of Property and Infrastructure
“Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” [Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud]
Regarding the Protection of Plants and Animals
“Do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” [Al-Muwatta]
Further Relevant Hadith
“Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” [Sahih Muslim]
“No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” [Sunan Abu Dawud]
“Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” [Al-Tirmidhi]
“Verily, the Sharia is founded upon wisdom and welfare for the servants in this life and the afterlife. In its entirety it is justice, mercy, benefit, and wisdom. Every matter which abandons justice for tyranny, mercy for cruelty, benefit for corruption, and wisdom for foolishness is not a part of the Sharia even if it was introduced therein by an interpretation.” [I’lam Al-Muwaqqi’in ‘an Rabb Al-Alamin 11]
From the above it can therefore be seen that the targeting of civilians and terrorism is completely unacceptable within Islam. These evidences from the primary and secondary texts also extinguished the fundamental points made in the piece in question.
Statements from Orientalists
In the book, ‘Islam: The Religion and the People’, well known Orientalist academic Bernard Lewis, wrote that “At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition). Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged, not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners, to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities, and to honour agreements…The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion.”
Verses Out Of Context
As with many Islamophobic diatribes, the piece in question also makes a number of errors through its literal and decontextualized reading of the Quran. A selection of these errors are addressed below.
Quran 9:5
The piece in question states that “ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is a moral act, in accordance, for example, with Surah 9:5 of the Qur’an, which states: ‘Fight and kill the idolators (mushrik) wherever you find them’”. The reason Daesh believe this is because they – like Islamophobes – misinterpret the text either willfully or through a lack of knowledge. In fact it appears that they do not interpret it at all, and instead read it literally, which is at complete odds with orthodox Islamic exegesis. Orthodox Islamic exegesis takes into account the verses before and after from Quran 9:1 to Quran 9:15, and therefore contextualise the verse in question. Failure to do this indicates a lack of integrity on the part of those interpreting the verse. Ustadh Faraz A. Khan comments on Quran 9:5 by asserting
“The Verse of the Sword deals specifically with the situation of Meccan polytheists breaking peace treaties and openly declaring war on the Muslim polity. The verse, then, commands the Muslim state to take up arms and defend itself against those that breached their covenants and attacked out of treachery. This explanation is confirmed by the most reliable Imams of Qur’anic exegesis [tafsir], including Imam Razi, Imam Jamal, Imam Zamakhshari, Imam Baydawi, Imam Nasafi, Imam Biqa`i, and others. [Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Jamal, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn; Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil; Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar] The verse, therefore, can by no means be generalized to refer to all disbelievers. Such an interpretation is not confirmed by scholars of Qur’anic interpretation. It would be both contrary to the intent of the verses as well as disastrous for the security of both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens and nation-states”.
Dr. Muhammad Abdel Haleem in his highly recommended book entitled ‘Understanding the Qur’an Themes and Style’, writes that
“the main clause of the sentence “kill the polytheists” is singled out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war. This is pure fantasy, isolating and decontextualizing a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in 9:1-15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight the polytheists. They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, “expelled” Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the immediate context of this “Sword Verse” exempts such polytheists who do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims [9:7], it orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to the place of safety they seek [9:6]. The whole of this context to v. 5, with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate one part of a sentence to build their theory of war in Islam on what is termed “The Sword Verse” even when the word sword does not occur anywhere in the Qur’an.”
Quran 8:12 & 8:15
The piece in question further asserts that “This strategy is commended by the Qur’an, for example in Surah 8:12, ‘I shall cast dread into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above (their) necks and strike (off) all their fingers!’”. Again, quoting these verses literally, and out of context is devoid of orthodox Islamic exegesis, and is not how the verses are to be understood, nor how they have been understand throughout history by the scholars.
The above verses were revealed at the battle of Badr. Reading from verses 8:9 to 8:19 will give a complete contextual perspective of the verse in question and demonstrate the specific context for which it was revealed. When read in context it does not promote or justify the killing of innocents and instead refers to a specific battle between two sets of armed combatants, and 8:12 refers to killing on the battle field of Badr. Furthermore, as can be seen in 8:19, God is instructing the Muslims to seek peace if the opposing party ceases hostilities.
Quran 33:26-27
The piece in question asserts that “As well as by the successful example of Muhammad in fighting the Jews of Medina, referred to in Surah 33:26-27, ‘He brought down from their fortifications those of the People of the Book who supported them, and cast dread into their hearts. You killed a group (of them), and took captive (another) group. And he caused you to inherit their land, their homes, and their wealth, and a land you had not set foot on.’”
Again, this faulty claim is a result of ignorance as to the orthodox Islamic exegesis, both on the part of the author, as well as Daesh, if in fact they do interpret the verse in this way. The fact is that this verse specifically refers to a Jewish tribe that had made and repeatedly broken a treaty with the Muslims, betraying them, and joining the enemy in battle against them.
It is of great relevance to note that the Constitution of Medina, was signed by 8 Jewish tribes, whilst this specific passage refers to one single tribe that betrayed the treaty and waged war against the Muslims. Again, this is not a blanket statement and is specific to one tribe in one specific historical situation.
Motivations
Guilt by Disbelief?
The piece in question incorrectly asserts that “However the important question is how ISIS sees its own motivations. Their ideology teaches them that infidels deserve death, simply by virtue of their unbelief”. While this may or may not be true about Daesh, this is certainly not true in regards to the teachings of Orthodox Islam:
Evidence from the Quran
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things”. [Quran, 2:256]
“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors”. [Quran, 2:190]
“…if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…” [Quran 5:32]
“Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgement will be doubled to him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy”. [Quran, 25:68-69]
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)”. [Quran, 8:61]
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers”. [The Quran 60:8]
“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them)”. [Quran, 15:2-3]
Colonialism, Postcolonialism and Neo-colonialism
The piece in question goes on to assert that “This has nothing to do with France’s history of colonialism or its treatment of Muslim minorities”. However, many International Relations scholars would disagree with this assertion. In fact, there is an entire sub-field entitled Critical Terrorism Studies dedicated to understanding the root causes of terrorism, and explain that terrorism is often related to, and motivated by, postcolonial conditions and neo-colonial realities. As such, I would suggest the author familiarise themselves with literature from this field of study in order to further their understanding of the numerous psychological, social, historical and political motivations for terrorism.
Evidence from the Attackers
Coupled with the authors faulty assertion that “their objection to Europeans is that they are not Muslims, and their objection to European states is that they do not implement sharia law”, the piece not only decontextualizes Quran verses as described above, but also seeks to decontextualized the immediate situation itself, and completely ignores the words of the gunmen themselves, who stated their motivations clearly, as recalled by a survivor of the Bataclan Theatre attack in an interview with RT. The survivor – Pierre Janaszak – asserted that they (the attackers) said: “’It’s because of Francois Hollande’ – our President – ‘because he attacks our (the attackers) countries’… Syria and Iraq, yeah, and he says: ‘when you kill terrorist, you kill innocent people, so you are bad. Now, today, we kill innocent people, so you feel the same thing that we feel in those countries’”. Another survivor claimed the attackers stated “This is because of all the harm done by Hollande to Muslims all over the world”. As such, it can be seen as an act of revenge and reprisal for the bombing of Iraq and Syria as opposed to the assertion by the author that it is motivated by Europe’s lack of Sharia law. The assertion that it is motivated by solely by religious factors can be further undermined by asking why France was attacked as opposed to the Vatican. After pondering this question, it becomes clear that this attack was in fact motivated by the factors that the author attempts to dismiss.
Clash of Civilisations Debunked
The piece in question asserts “To combat this ideology it is necessary for Europe to prove ISIS wrong on all counts. It must show strength, not weakness. It must have confidence in its cultural and spiritual identity. It must be willing to fight for its survival. It must show that it believes in itself enough to fight for its future. It must defend its borders. It must act like someone who intends to win an interminably long war against an implacable foe”.
This perspective stems from Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis, which is an outdated and much criticised paradigm in the field of International Relations. I would suggest reading scholars such as Amartya Sen (Democracy as a Universal Value), Paul Berman (Terror and Liberalism), Tariq Ali (Clash of Fundamentalisms), as well as Edward Said (The Clash of Ignorance) who stated that the Huntington ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis is “the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims”.
The piece in question further demands that “Islam renounce its love affair with conquest and dominance”, which shows a misunderstanding of how Islam spread, and is in fact highly ironic given that this statement is completely blind to the bloody European history of colonial conquest and dominance which costs the lives of tens of millions of people (at a conservative estimate) and continues to be a causative factor in many contemporary geopolitical issues as asserted above.
The ‘Problem’ of Jihad?
The piece in question also asserts that “One hope for Europe is that Islamic populations will get tired of the doctrine of jihad and all its bitter fruits”. This suggests that Muslims do not understand the doctrine of Jihad, which is an incorrect assumption. The fact is that many Muslims do understand the concept of Jihad and also possess the ability to identify when the concept is misappropriated to cause unnecessary violence that is at odds with the sharia. Again, it is the extremists and the Islamophobes that lack an understanding of this matter. It is pertinent to explain here that the principles of legitimate Jihad is actually enshrined in the UN Charter VII Article 51, which states
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
Both the principles of Jihad and Article 51 are in agreement as to the legitimate use of force.
The piece in question further asserts that “They (Muslims) could, even at this late hour, demand that the large and rapidly growing Muslim communities now well-established across Europe engage in constructive self-criticism of their religion, for the sake of peace”. However, as stated previously, it is not the religion at fault – it is those who choose to misinterpret the religion either willingly or out of ignorance. What is in fact required is widespread education in relation to Orthodox Islamic principles.
Conclusion: Education as the Catalyst for Change
This piece as a whole exemplifies how its author possesses the same approach to perceiving the ‘reality’ around them as Daesh – a ‘black and white’, ‘us v them’ worldview. It is an approach that lacks nuance, academic integrity and a correct understanding of Islam, and in fact it is exactly this kind of worldview that Daesh wants to promote. By writing and propagating such pieces, the author is in fact tacitly promoting Daesh and fulfilling their objectives to split the world into two camps. Thus we must be aware of the hate peddlers that occupy both sides of the same coin (extremists and Islamophobes), and we in the majority of society must resist this polarisation and stand in solidarity against the wilful perversion of facts and information motivated by furthering both agendas. We as humanity must come together to reject hate in all forms – the first step of which is to actively learn, educate and understand, as opposed to passively consume, assume and sensationalise through ill-informed polemics.
We have released this statement not merely to rebut these points, but also as a way for Islamophobes to reflect on the little that they know, in order to for them to change for the better, open their minds and hearts with sincerity, and become part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem.
On the inquiry into “public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.”
From: Glyn Carpenter National Director New Zealand Christian Network 297a Church Street, Auckland Ph: (09) 525 0949 and (022) 184 7466
I am writing on behalf of New Zealand Christian Network to ask that the committee recommend that euthanasia not be legalised in New Zealand.
I do wish to speak to the committee in person.
Submission
Introduction
New Zealand Christian Network is a broad-spectrum network of churches and Christian leaders, with a Board of Reference that includes leaders from all the main denominations. We present positions on issues that reflect the views of the majority of Christians in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Christians currently represent the largest faith group in Aotearoa New Zealand according to the national census with roughly half of the population indicating that they are Christian.
Christians and Christian faith have played, and continue to play, an important role in this country.
In 2014 we marked the bicentenary of the arrival of the Christian gospel in Aotearoa New Zealand which was an essential foundation for the Treaty of Waitangi and the bicultural partnership in our nation.
Christian social services are a vital component of the social fabric in this country.
Christian churches nurture spiritual faith and character based on the life and example of Jesus Christ who taught people to ‘love their neighbour’ and live in service of God and others. (According to Massey University research over 20% of the population attends church on a regular basis).
This submission is based on a desire to achieve an outcome which is good for everyone in New Zealand.
We have good connections with members of the Care Alliance and Euthanasia-Free NZ. Both of these groups are making submissions and we do not intend here to repeat here in detail the points they will be making. But we do want to register our general support for their submissions.
We also have connections into the medical profession. We are aware of their general opposition to the proposal and we support their position.
For and Against
The main arguments for and against permitting ‘medically-assisted dying’ are presented in some detail on the Care Alliance, Euthanasia-Free NZ, and Voluntary Euthanasia Society websites, and in their public statements.
Summary of the arguments Against (from the Care Alliance website):
Legal safeguards cannot protect the vulnerable from euthanasia abuses
Euthanasia and assisted-suicide are the ultimate tools for elder abuse
It sends a hypocritical message about suicide
The killing always increases
Diagnosis and prognosis can be mistaken
An easy death is not guaranteed
It compromises the hospice movement
Trust in doctors and nurses falls
Arguments For (from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society website)
The VES website has a document which contains responses to each of the arguments listed above.
In addition, while there is no comparable document presenting a separate list of arguments in favour of assisted suicide, it seems that the main argument is individual autonomy or freedom of choice.
Christians and Life
The general Christian view is that life is a gift from God. Life is sacred. It is God’s to give and take.
This belief over the centuries has contributed to the high regard that people generally have for life today
This ‘life ethic’ influences areas ranging from our health system and hospice movement, through to human rights and social justice. Everyone benefits from these developments whether they are Christians or not.
Because life is a gift from God, it is therefore not for individuals to end it (in the case of suicide), or for others to end it (in the case of assisted suicide).
Christians and Autonomy
Christians also have high regard for an individual’s right to choose, which is the main argument from proponents of a law change. But this right or freedom does not exist in isolation, nor is it absolute.
Societies have to balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. We recognise that the state should only limit individual rights where they interfere with the health or safety of the community. There are limitations with this view though:
It is often difficult to measure “health or safety” (the widely recognised problem with John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy)
The concept of ‘unbearable’ is also problematic (as in ‘terminal illness or irreversible condition that makes life unbearable’). . How is ‘unbearable’ determined? If it boils down to the view of the individual, the proposition will end up being reduced to “if an individual wants assisted suicide they can have it”. . With many options available to make situations ‘bearable’, isn’t society better off if we focus on those, rather than pushing for an individual right which will profoundly change the way society views life?
Clearly, something other than rights and law is needed to make a good and caring society
Caricatures of the Christian position . The Committee should be alert to caricatures of the Christian position (e.g. the document “Christians and Religious Perspectives” on the Voluntary Euthanasia Society website http://www.ves.org.nz/christian-and-religious-perspectives). . A few examples should suffice (emphasis throughout added by this author):
The document referred to begins with the phrase “Some Christians and Muslims argue that God gives us our life and hence we have no right to authorise anyone to hasten our death”. Misleading (this is mainstream teaching in both religions)
“In general, Christians believe that God has given us free will … but when we wish to hasten our dying to limit our suffering, some tell us we are not allowed to do that”. . Obfuscation (hastening dying is not the only way to limit suffering) and misleading (not hastening dying is mainstream teaching)
“God would prefer you to suffer rather than get help to end your life. God would prefer you to lose all your dignity rather than being able to say farewell to your loved ones while still conscious”. . False alternative (end life or suffer) and gross misrepresentation of God (God does not prefer people lose their dignity, and God does not present the false alternative)
“… it is difficult to find a place where God or biblical writers say that futile suffering and pain is to be desired as one approaches death …” . Straw man argument – this is not biblical, neither is it mainstream teaching. . . The general theme is that God is harsh, and doesn’t mind, or perhaps even wants people to suffer. This is not true, and with access to palliative care, is simply irrelevant.
Balancing the Gifts of Life and Freedom, of the Individual and Society
This is the issue that is at the heart of this debate. Christian belief is not only that life is a gift from God, but that this belief has directly contributed to the society we all benefit from whether or not we hold to Christian belief.
This belief obviously inclines us to see the merits in the detailed arguments listed above against permitting assisted suicide over and above the arguments for.
But we should also not minimise the significance of the fundamental shift in society when we move from total ‘ethic of life’ (creating, preserving, healing, caring), to one where ‘death’ (intentionally ending life) is part of the culture.
As the Church is significantly involved in community and social services, we are particularly concerned about the arguments involving the vulnerable and the elderly. . Elder abuse is already a significant issue in New Zealand, and it can be very hard to detect. It is easy to imagine a range of scenarios where elderly people will conceal abuse or emotional pressure, or perhaps not even be aware of it themselves. If assisted suicide is legalised, it is hard to believe that any regime will be able to fully safeguard against some people being pressured to end their own lives.
Conclusion. We recognise that many people in New Zealand, in Parliament, and probably in the Select Committee, do not consider themselves to be Christians, and that the content of this submission, particularly the points directly connected to Christian faith or teaching, may be difficult to process. . We respectfully request that the Select Committee not reject these without considering the extent and role of Christian faith in New Zealand, and the fact that if the points in this submission are correct, Parliament’s role should be to preserve the ‘life ethic’ which is foundational in our society.
We recognise that many people in New Zealand, in Parliament, and probably in the Select Committee, do not consider themselves to be Christians, and that the content of this submission, particularly the points directly connected to Christian faith or teaching, may be difficult to process.
We respectfully request that the Select Committee not reject these without considering the extent and role of Christian faith in New Zealand, and the fact that if the points in this submission are correct, Parliament’s role should be to preserve the ‘life ethic’ which is foundational in our society.
NZ Christian Network is urging churches and individuals concerned about the possibility of euthanasia being legalised in New Zealand, to make submissions to the Health Select Committee before the due date 1 Feb 2016.
“There has been some very good work done by various groups on the issue. We are particularly impressed by and grateful for the work of the Care Alliance, which has produced a brochure to help people make submissions” – [Glyn Carpenter, NZ Christian Network]
The Care Allliance website contains all the information necessary to make a submission. This can be done online, or by email, or by traditional post.
“We are asking pastors and concerned individuals in churches to make sure the link to Care Alliance is circulated within churches” said Carpenter.
“But more than that … we have been informed by the chair of the select committee that if people are concerned about this issue, they MUST make a submission. Silence could be interpreted by MPs as people not caring.
Submissions can be as short as one sentence, or include as many points as people want to make. We’ve heard of one local church that finished its Sunday service early, handed out pens, paper, and envelopes, and in ten minutes, 130 submissions were written.
The important thing is for people to use their own words, and not to cut & paste someone else’s words.
We are also thankful to the Nathaniel Centre which produced the list of arguments below. People can use the list as a basis for making their own points in a submission.
[ENDS]
New Zealand Christian Network is a broad-spectrum network of churches and Christian leaders, with a Board of Reference that includes leaders from all the main denominations. It seeks to present a biblically orthodox position on issues, reflecting the views of the majority of Christians in New Zealand.
There are some things which are basic in our Christian lives – things like prayer, Bible reading, worship, witness.
NZ Christian Network organised two major discussions recently – one on marriage and one on secularism, involving regional leaders, members of our focus discussion groups, theologians, and some national church leaders, And the common theme at the conclusion of these discussions is that we need to be praying more and we need to be reading our Bibles better.
So I was delighted when I followed up these discussions with Tim Bulkeley, former lecturer at Carey Baptist College and now roving Bible teacher and scholar, and Tim expressed a passionate interest in seeing something done about the Bible reading part of that equation.
Tim had (rather helpfully) already prepared a 5 minute video clip to introduce what he had in mind (see video link). It is similar to a course he has taught many times in New Zealand and continues to teach internationally.
The church I attend is running the introduction session in a couple of weeks time, and we will then be working with some other Bible lecturers to figure out how best to structure this for NZ churches and what would be the best delivery mechanisms.
If you are interested in staying informed, please leave your name and details on our office number (09) 525 0949
Are the speaker’s arguments reasonable and logical?
