Islamic Seduction of “Christian” West?
A. “Tolerance” in Islam vs. the West stance of “Mea culpa”
Since its foundation, Islam chose to assimilate the ethnicities it conquered by providing a degree of tolerance to those who embraced monotheism. For Europe, on the other hand, we cannot say the same thing. Even though a few stories of do exist of neighborly cohabitation in a mozarabic context, the crusades and the re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula have stained the history of the continent. However, as the saying goes, “It’s not gold all that glitters”; and behind the facade of magnanimity of the caliphs and the sultans lie many stories of pain: from the prisons of Algiers, to the forceful recruitment of janissaries[1], not to mention the disgrace of the dhimmi [2]. It was not until the Ottoman capitulations and the resurgence of Islamic nationalist movements towards the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century that Europe, now in its new conciliatory role, began to announce its unilateral stance of “mea culpa”.
“Tolerance” was an advanced posture in the middle ages, but in actuality, its nothing else but discriminatory. To tolerate is to “suffer, or bear patiently” something uncomfortable. The West, on the other hand, seeks integration and the naturalization of minority groups. If the West has indeed advanced, the East has reached a standstill in the best of all possible scenarios.
Besides the presence of Christians and Jews in the city of Mecca and of the mythical- or otherwise not so mythical- monk Bahira who instructed Mohammed, one of the first contacts between “Christendom” and expanding Islam is found in the illustrative case of John of Damascus. Both he and many early Byzantine writers assumed Islam to be no more than one of the heterodox forms found in Christianity. In John’s particular case, this thought proves to be very interesting since he was raised in the Umayyad court in Damascus- the capital of the young Islamic Empire- where his father was the court vizier and intimate friend of the future caliph, Yazid. Upon reaching old age John retired to the monastery in the desert of Mar Saba where he began working in his masterpiece which refuted many heresies of the time, and was titled: “Concerning Heresy”. The book includes a clear criticism of Islam- the first one written by a Christian (c. 700 AD) – in which John loosely related it to the heterodox doctrine of Nestorianism[3]. In his particular list, Islam occupied number 100 amongst many others that seemed to resemble Christianity. In fact, there was a relationship that both Nestorians and Muslims were conscious of. In 649 a Nestorian bishop wrote the following: “These Arabs do not fight against our Christian religion; no, in fact we could even say they defend our faith; they respect our priests and saints, and they offer donations to our churches”[4].
Initially, Muslims were viewed as liberators from Byzantine oppression by Monophysite Christians[5] and the Nestorians of Syria and Egypt. The same could be said of persecuted Jews who once…“Liberated from the miseries and persecution of Constantinople, prospered like never before; generating in the very process a rich literary collection of spiritual hymns, prayers, sermons, and other pious works.”[6]
B. The origins of the East-West confrontation
¿What has happened during the last century?
Since the 7th century the map of the known world was shaped by the expansion of Islam, which at one point covered almost one fourth of the earth’s populated surface. One of the last empires to succumb, almost along the same time frame as the British or Austro-Hungarian Empires, was the Ottoman Empire itself. This period also marked the beginning of the end of the so called “clash” between East and West, i.e. the clash between Islamic Nationalism and Christian Imperialism (at least, as many Muslims see it). Why is this so? Because it was powers like France (under Napoleon), England (during the Victorian period), Italy (under Victor Manuel), Spain (until the reign of the Bourbon’s), and others, that split the pie containing North Africa and the Middle East; thereby shaming the prideful Islamic “Umma” which has never forgotten its role as a once World power and representative of the “last and most pure form” of all monotheistic religions. In the very same manner, Muslims haven’t forgotten the crusades and remember them as a scene of medieval barbarism against the civilized Arabic world of the time; where Jews, Eastern Christians, and Muslims cohabited (We can’t come even close to compare the level of tolerance in the Middle East, back then, with the annihilation of Jews, heretics, and moors that was taking place in the West throughout the Inquisition).
- The “guilt” culture apologizes; the “honor/shame culture” retaliates
According to the basic definition of the World’s three cultures (guilt, shame and fear), the West belongs to the culture of “innocence and guilt” and the East to the culture of “honor and shame”. What happens when one is guilty and loses his/her innocence? That person must apologize in order to receive absolution. What happens when a person is insulted and his/her honor is stained? That person must retaliate to recover dignity and clean him/herself from the insults received. This is the very thing that happens today: The West apologizes, while the East demands compensations for the insult it has received. Europe sings along the tune of the “Mea culpa”, and Islam in Europe demands a “satisfaction” for the “insults” received. There’s a plethora of examples that exemplify this attitude: From the demands of Muslims in Holland to eliminate the crosses in Dutch passports or of erasing the shield of the Swiss national football team[7], to the minaret conflict in Switzerland and the movie director Theo Van Gogh- who was murdered for his short film in which a woman appeared with a verse of the Koran tattooed on her back.
- We are more alike than we think we are
To be perfectly honest, our worldview is also stained by biases just like the one of an average Muslim. For example, Turkey demands its inclusion into Europe and the Continent recites the pre-conditions that Turkey must meet. However, what Turkey is looking for is for acceptance (i.e. being ‘honored’) so that they can have a pretext and reason to submit to the conditions and European rules as ‘their’ rules as well and not merely as imposition (i.e. insult).
But, haven’t we experienced some of this in the Iberian Peninsula before we were “accepted” into Europe? “Africa begins in the Pyrenees,” the famous saying went. Spain was “different”, things that were purchased were “made in Europe”, and the list goes on and on… Our phobias are also extremely similar, but opposite. The Iberian Peninsula was practically Muslim until the 13th-14th century, while Anatolia was practically Christian until about the same dates. In our black and white movies of Moors vs. Christians, the Moors were always portrayed as extremely malevolent; while in their movies, the Christians are the treacherous ones. According to popular rumors, Arabs are buying land in the “Costa del Sol” to re-conquer el-Andalus, while in their rumors “Christians” buy terrain in Anatolia to restore the Byzantine Empire. The mosque in Cordova was initially converted to a church and now is a museum; the basilica of the Hagia Sophia was initially transformed into a mosque and now is a museum. Our “Catholic” kings expelled the Jews some 500 years ago, while the Ottoman Sultan welcomed them into Istanbul until very recently. The battle of Lepanto curbed Turkish piracy in the Mediterranean according to us, but according to their history the battle of “Inebahti” (as they name it) took place in order to repel Christian piracy. Public baths are “from Turkey” in Spain. The “tavernas” (rustic pubs/inns) are “from Spain” in Turkey. Storks migrate from Europe to Africa through the Iberian Peninsula, and they do the same over Anatolia! We are in both extremes of the Mediterranean, and we are so alike; yet at the same time, so different.
C. Beyond the boundaries of East and West
Before entering the topic concerning the seduction of Christians, we must clearly define what our position should be. Despite all the aforementioned points and thoughts, we must not let ourselves be overcome by phobias, paranoia, or alarming conspiracy theories. We must not demonize one fourth of the world’s population because of its religion. They are under the power of the “evil one” just as much as Romans and Greeks were in the time of Paul- or even our own people in our respective “Christian” countries. We should not be, become, or view this as “Christendom” vs. the “Islamic Civilization” (and I graciously hope that our sense of identity and citizenship is firmly rooted in the heavens). We can’t just label them as “terrorists”, per se. Were all Christians terrorists because of the I.R.A? What the average folk is concerned about in the East is about making ends meet at the end of the month: paying the mortgage, the children’s school fees, etc- the same very worry that Westerners have. Or, is it that Milosevic was a Christian performing a ‘holy crusade’ against Bosnian Muslims (like Muslims would accuse us of)? However, at the same time, we can’t underestimate Islamic firmness and determination. We can’t be allowing ourselves to be seduced or subjugated into a cause that they wholeheartedly believe in; to the degree that sometimes it would even put the firmness of the faith in the best of us to shame. Obviously, we can’t expect to find formulas with instantaneous results; because if we do, we’ll end up frustrated the end of the day or even worse: seduced!
We must establish ourselves boundaries rooted in our clear identity in Jesus, and solely in Jesus. So what does this imply?
D. Christian Missions being seduced?
There’s a seductive force, the most dangerous one yet, to which more and more believers and Mission movements as a whole are succumbing to with the urge of obtaining ‘instantaneous’ results. Too many centuries of Islamic attrition have transpired for us to be expecting instant results now. There are too many historical wounds in the memory of a Muslim, too many prejudices in the social conscience, and too many fears as to what the reaction of the community might be, so as to not be aware that the key for us is to not concede ground in our faith but persevere to the very end until we reach the point whereby we convince them that we don’t represent anyone else but Jesus. This is the way to truly reach and love a Muslim, and help them with the Gospel.
- A new paradigm?
I have heard the following type of declarations in various missiological events relative to our topic: “The Church of the last 2000 years will be substituted by a new paradigm…”, “We shouldn’t be afraid of syncretism”, “The Trinitarian councils isolated Jews from the Gospel…the same is happening today with Muslims”, “In South-East Asia there are thousands upon thousands that are coming to know the Lord. “ These “converts” continue calling themselves Muslims, reading the Koran, praying five times a day, going to the mosque, recognizing Mohammed as a “prophet”… only that now, they “believe” that Jesus died for them and that he is “Lord”. There currently is an attempt to lower the bar so that all may enter the sheep pen without using the gate. The seduction that is approaching us is: an Islam that is not conceding, while the Gospel is conceding ground step by step. How long will this last? The Protestant pluralist theologian John Hick –analyzed by Muslims scholars in Turkey[8]– reinterprets the “only way” (John 14:6) and “there’s only one name” (Heb 4:12) as many “ways” and various “names” thereby adulterating their meaning. There is a clear attempt to get rid of “intransigent exclusivism” (of the type that Jesus is the ONLY way) to embrace a “conciliatory pluralism” (of the type that all roads lead to Rome).
- The erudition of the Kalam
Others are seduced or tempted by the erudition of Sufis (Muslim mystics) or the âlims (Islamic philosophers) that developed a theology that is just as complicated and has nothing to envy from the complexity of much Christian Scholasticism. One such example is Hasan-al-Basri (642-728) who teaches that after repenting (tawba) from our sins, we must then repent from our ‘act of repenting’ because otherwise we don’t focus on Allah and it becomes an ego-centric act that seeks self-relief rather than submission to Him. Aren’t these thoughts deep and worthy of admiration? We can and we must respect all erudition, mystics, philosophers, and even the teachings of those who have been ‘canonized’ by their religion. However, what we can’t do nor should do is adulterate the Gospel to polish rough edges with other creeds and hence edify a common house with common usage. Yes, there do exist and there should be concepts that we can discuss, dialog, change impressions and polish definitions. To give an example of such topics we could mention the topic of predestination and free will (One of the cornerstones of Islam), and use these discussions to improve social conditions. If there are common beliefs, which indeed there are, we and should use them as bridges to the Gospel, like: Abraham’s sacrifice, the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles… Paul cited pagan authors of his day, which shows us that he had carefully studied them. However, what Paul didn’t do was yield to “human wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:4) to make the Gospel more accessible to classical rhetoric. The classical philosophers proposed subjects that were just as or even more profound than those posed by Islamic erudites and kalaam.
E. Discerning the Spirit of Error (1st John 4:1-6; 5:6-12)
- Tolerating another Jesus?
The core of the attacks against the Gospel, according to 1st John and as shown by the many heresies that have existed throughout the history of the Church, have always been targeted against the humanity and/or divinity of single person; Jesus Christ (as well as the reality or validity of his expiation). The key stumbling block of Islam is the negation of His divinity and death on the cross. We can make no capitulations concerning this topic: “I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2nd Cor. 11:1-4). Or is it that we want to create a heterodox and islamisized sect of Christianity with the kinds of “believers” of whom one cannot tell whether they are followers of Christ or Mohammed?
- Co-habitation and/or con-fession
We can and we must share our lives: our tea, meals, home, time (especially our time), our faith in the prophets and their prophecies, and our prayers and blessings… much like Jesus did, who had no reservations when in order to reach lost souls, entered peoples’ houses or different environments without setting any preconditions. However, he didn’t enter these places to adapt to them, but to transform lives! The seduction to which we are exposed today is thinking that by conceding terrain both theologically and in the distinctive signs of the Christian convert we will widen the entrance door and will win victory more easily. But this is not the terrain that we must concede! The places where we have to concede and make sacrifices are those places where we have to love them, carry their burdens, become more like Jesus, and suffer persecution. The key for us is: UNLIMITED CLOSENESS IN CO-HABITATION[9], BUT A CLEAR DISTINCTION IN CON-FESSION[10].
Therefore “confession” means: Declaring, which implies that there are other people who are receiving and hearing this declaration. All Christians must be a visible exponent of the Kingdom of God and be able to identify with Christ publicly through the help of the Holy Spirit without implicit negations. There’s an abysmal difference between “NOT declaring to the world that we are Christians when facing peril” vs. “giving reason to believe that we’re NOT Christians” if we keep identifying ourselves as “Muslims”. We could argue that in reality and by definition we are more of a Muslim (i.e. “submitted to God”) than Muslims themselves, in such scenarios however, we are not hiding our Christian identity but reaffirming it. At the end of the day, what is important is that when we try to hide our identity what we are truly doing is hiding Jesus!
We have to be side by side with the less favored or most disadvantaged ones, no matter what their religion might be. We can find common agreement in areas such as: community, legal, sanitary, and educational needs (etc.) with any ethnic or religious group. However, what we can’t do is lower the banner for the nations who need to “see” in order to be saved (Is 11:10; 45:22).
Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that those who make such concessions are succumbing to such seduction or are born heretics. Deception advances slyly and establishes itself softly. First, people speak of contextualization (1st Cor. 9:19-22); then of spiritual liberations and transformed lives; then of numbers of ‘converts’; then of prejudices that the Church had to overcome so many times to promote and initiate Mission movements… and then, finally we realize that what we are all looking for is the same thing: The propagation of the message in such a way that is faithful to the principles of the Gospel but also overcomes certain petrified traditions. However, what is nowadays titled as “petrified traditions” is nothing else than the very rudiments of the Gospel!
- Contextualization and/or “Incarnation”
Of course we have to contextualize; What’s more, we have to “incarnate” ourselves! Christ didn’t contextualize, he embodied. Today under the concept of “contextualization” we are not only changing the wrapping of the package but also it’s content. Jesus embodied himself but he didn’t transform into an android. In other words he didn’t become human to the point of losing his divine and heavenly nature. We have to present the gift in a wrapping that not only does not offend but also eases acceptance. However the present itself must not change. Some will say that this is the very thing that they do; but if the cross is no longer the ONLY way, the Bible the ONLY truth, confessing that we belong to Him no longer the ONLY source of life; then, this becomes a life with compromises. This is when we are attempting to change the present. He did not come to adapt himself to customs or to change them. He came to identify with us, to suffer with/for us, and later open the one and only way for the salvation of our souls. He didn’t comply with the religious or the sinner. He co-habited with them and he removed himself from their molds. Those who had thirst for ‘more of God’ did not feel close to Jesus because he chose to condescend to their level of sin or bad habits, but because He identified with them (with the Nicodemus’ and the Magdalene’s) and freed them from their ostracism by directing them to liberating truth. This transformation occurred in these people’s lives because they followed a Jesus that did not pretend or conceal.
Which of these is the biggest danger: dissuasion or seduction? Both! If someone dissuades us from finishing our work and if we don’t persevere to the end, we will never see fruit. If someone seduces us to find an in-between path and make the door wider, we’re actually opening another door and not the one of Jesus. These same dangers were the two biggest perils that the churches mentioned in the book of Revelation were faced with. That is why the message to these churches is clear: Don’t give up or accommodate!
We must remember though, that feelings of “Christian” or “Western” supremacy, of spiritual superiority, underestimating Islam and or scorning it loftily brings with itself risks of frustration and seduction. A person that does not respect his/her adversary cannot overcome the blows; he/she would get to arrogant and would be eventually knocked out.
We must not make ourselves to be champions of the West or “Christendom” or even of our own version of what the Church should look like…Our commitment is and should only be with Jesus, 100%.
F. The 4 dangers of being seduced
So, we can say that the 4 stages of seduction are the following:
- Becoming subjugated or trapped by a sense of “guilt” when Muslims demand political and social compensations.
- Ending up dissuaded and throwing the towel when we see that many years of our life pass by with endless toil due to the difficulties and the cost of the task.
- Becoming captivated by Islamic erudition and consequently trying to polish rough “exclusivist” edges between both faiths.
- Ending up alienated by our covetousness for results; i.e. diluting distinctive Christian signs and exciting ourselves with figures of doubtful “converts”.
Carlos Madrigal,
Istanbul, October 20th 2009
[1] The janissaries constituted of an army formed as a result of a ‘human’ tax named devshirmeh. The sultan’s men recruited non-Muslim children (of whom most were Christian), chosen randomly and alienated from their family and roots to later go through stages of a strict selective process, to finally become the fiercest of guards of the sultan.
[2] The dhimmi is the name given to Jews and Christians who lived in Islamic lands, and whose presence was tolerated in exchange for the fee of a special tax and the acceptance of a socially inferior position.
[3] Nestorianism is a theological doctrine that considers Christ to be radically split into two persons: one human and one divine, both complete in themselves to the point that we could speak of two independent entities. The two persons are united in Christ, who is God and man at the same; hence Christ is said to be formed by two different persons (prosopōn).
[4] Margaret Smith, Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East, Oneworld, 1995, p. 120.
[5] Monophysitism (from the Greek μόνος, monos, ’one’, and φύσις, physis, ’nature’) is a theological doctrine that states that Jesus was only present in divine nature while on earth, but not human.
[6] See Michele Piccirillo, The Christians in Palestine During a Time of Transition: 7th–9th Centuries en The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, edited by Anthony O’Mahony, Scorpion Cavendish, 1995.
[7] This was the demand of some Turks in Switzerland who would never even think of eliminating the crescent present in their own national symbols.
[8] John Hick, The metaphor of God incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age, CM Press Ltd., 1993. The alarming thing is that Hick’s thoughts, and other ones of the kind, are seriously read and considered amongst Muslim circles. In Turkey, for example we have much literature borne from this: Mahmut Aydin’s book, Jesus God or Man? (Îsâ, Tanrı mı, İnsan mı? İZ Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2002).
[9] Co-habit: “to live together or in company” (2nd definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary). I.e. to “live together” in peace, in company, like good neighbors or a family…
[10] Con-fess: “to declare faith in or adherence to: to profess” (3rd definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).