Questioning Islamophobia

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 2, 2017

Questioning Islamophobia

There's much talk lately about Islamophobia, so let's be clear on this at the get go: Muslims are people we should love and respect—and welcome.

Although I disagree deeply with Islam (the religion that centers itself on Muhammad and the Qur'an), I believe Jesus' command to love my neighbour requires that I respect those with whom I disagree. After all, all people—including Muslims—are made in the image of God.

But let's be clear on this, too: having reasonable, evidence-based concerns about Islam—especially when adherents closely follow the violent life and teachings of Muhammad—is not an instance of Islamophobia.

Please note: I am NOT saying that all Muslims are monolithic in their views, that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters of ISIS, nor that any Muslims should be treated with prejudice or in any way unjustly.

Rather, I am saying that we need to do some careful thinking.

With this end in mind, let's assess a meme I often see circulating on the internet.

The meme has two pictures with a caption under each. The first picture is of a meeting of several white-robed-white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members. The caption: “No-one thinks that these people are representative of Christians.”

The second picture (immediately below the first) is of a dozen black-garbed-black-masked ISIS fighters with weapons at the ready. The caption: “So why do so many people think that these people are representative of Muslims?”

The apparent implication: just as the KKK isn't Christian, so too ISIS isn't Islamic.

Let's pause and think.

Most or all the Christians and Muslims I know are decent people, and, yes, we should protect them from being misrepresented. So far so good.

But the questions we should be asking are these: Does the KKK actually follow the example and teachings of Jesus? (Answer: clearly no.) Does ISIS actually follow the example and teachings of Muhammad? (Answer: very apparently yes.)

The more I learn about the life and teachings of Muhammad (see resource list below), the more I am convinced that Muhammad was an extremely violent man bent on world domination by force—and he teaches his followers to be and do likewise. (It's interesting that the present leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Studies.)

Unlike Jesus, who shed his own blood for others to spread his message, Muhammad shed the blood of others to impose his message.

Now consider the notion of phobia. A phobia is an irrational or ungrounded fear, aversion, or hatred.

Consider arachnophobia, an irrational ungrounded fear or hatred of spiders. Clearly, it's possible to have reasonable, non-phobic concerns about some spiders if the spiders display evidence of being harmful or lethal to humans.

In recent years I've seen too many public discussions shut down because people who raise important questions are dismissed as "phobic" when in fact they're not. The if-you-disagree-then-you're-phobic card is a smokescreen against truth—it's an ad hominem fallacy—and it misleads audiences untrained in logic.

In view of ISIS and its close affiliation with Muhammad's violent life and teachings, the challenge before us is threefold: (1) we should encourage Muslims who do not emulate Muhammad's violence to continue doing so; (2) we should challenge Islamic leaders whenever they preach Muhammad's violence as behaviour to be emulated; and (3) we should do 1 and 2 in such ways that show love, compassion, and respect to Muslims.

Yes, this is no small challenge. It also isn't Islamophobia.

Speaking truth and loving others can—and should—go hand in hand.

Recommended resources:

• William Kilpatrick, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism (book)
• Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (book)
• Robert Spencer et al., Islam: What the West Needs to Know (online video)
• R.C. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (book)
• David Wood, Answering Muslims (website)

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College.) 

Refugee crisis

Aerial View of the Za'atri Refugee Camp (Wikipedia)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 17, 2015

Refugee crisis

As a result of the sad and horrific photo of a drowned three-year-old boy washed up on a Mediterranean beach, many Canadians have become deeply aware of the refugee crisis caused by ISIS and Co.

In response, our political leaders are calling for greater efforts in accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid. I applaud this.

And I applaud Prime Minister Stephen Harper's response to the problem: we will accept more refugees, provide more humanitarian aid, and provide military aid—i.e., we will help the victims and stop those who victimize.

In other words, the wise and just use of force is needed along with our aid. It's comparable to sending paramedics and police to help out at a school shooting rampage, not just paramedics.

PM Harper explains further: "Resettlement [of refugees] is obviously part of our plan, as it is with many other countries…. But the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and Syria cannot be solved—cannot even become close to being solved—by refugee policy alone. We must stop ISIS."

Harper adds: "We can accept thousands or tens of thousands, and maybe all the countries in the world together [can accept] hundreds of thousands of refugees. But ISIS left to its own devices will create millions—tens of millions—of refugees and victims on a monthly basis. That's why the international community intervened…. We were witnessing mass slaughter at an alarming, lightning pace that was sweeping across the region."

Harper continues: "[F]or Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair to say things like 'Well, we shouldn't be participating militarily, we should just be doing humanitarian assistance,' let me quote what the representatives of Diaspora groups in Canada [i.e., citizens forcibly dispersed from their homeland] said about that policy: 'If your policy is humanitarian assistance without military support, all you're doing is dropping aid on dead people.'"

I agree with Harper: "That's not acceptable. We're a country that can contribute militarily and in a humanitarian sense, and we are doing both."

Of course, there are complexities. We must address questions concerning Middle East politics and our "end game."

Nevertheless, I think our Prime Minister is on track with Canada's military engagement (along with refugee and humanitarian aid). Why? Because the longer we hesitate, the more ISIS rapes, enslaves, and murders multitudes, and the longer we hesitate, the more ISIS gains strength.

I see the situation as similar to pre-World War II, where there were military forces (Germany and Japan) whose ideologies pushed them to conquer and enslave the world. The more that the Allies hesitated back then, the more powerful the forces bent on conquering the world became. And the tougher it became to stop them.

ISIS is a force bent on conquering the world. ISIS is growing in the havoc it wreaks, and ISIS is growing in strength—and boldness. I am concerned that nuclear weapons will soon fall into the hands of ISIS.

I appreciate Canada's (generally) good reputation in helping refugees. If our government can help more refugees—and do so more quickly—that would be better, though we must be cautious not to import terrorists, and we should make efforts to help the most vulnerable (such as persecuted Yazidis and Christians). Moreover, I think that churches, temples, mosques, community groups, and individuals should pitch in.

And rich Middle East countries should be encouraged to assist, too. [Apparently, Saudi Arabia has 100,000 air-conditioned tents that could hold three million people sitting empty.]

But military action is also needed to stop innocents from being raped, enslaved, and murdered so there needn't be refugees in the first place.

Significantly, PM Harper reports the plea of the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church: they don't want to have to become refugees.

Thus, along with accepting refugees and sending humanitarian aid (more and faster is better on both counts), wise military action is also needed. Wise military action is needed to stop the ongoing rapes, enslavements, and murders by ISIS and Company—as the wise lethal force of a police officer is needed to stop a killer on a shooting rampage.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Jesus or Muhammad?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 19, 2015

Jesus or Muhammad?

In today's postmodern religious world, much emphasis is on story. But I find myself asking: how do I arbitrate between competing religious stories? How do I arbitrate between, say, Christianity and Islam? Who should I follow—Jesus or Muhammad?

My answer: Jesus. Why? Because publicly accessible historical evidence favours Jesus, not Muhammad. Here is a summary of relevant historical evidence.

Jesus claims to be the God of the universe (the great I AM) come to earth as a human being. He lives a life characterized by healings, compassion for the vulnerable, and speaking truth to power. He claims he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that nobody comes to God but through him.

Jesus is accused of blasphemy, is unjustly sentenced to death, and dies a horrible, painful death on a cross. A couple days later, however, Jesus is seen physically alive and well by various individuals and variously sized groups, at different times, at different places, over a period of several weeks. (Not so incidentally, the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection are women, which implies a high view of women, if Jesus is God.)

The risen Jesus teaches that via his death and resurrection Jesus takes our punishment for sin onto himself and he defeats the powers of death, and that his resurrection is a sign for us to trust him—so we should repent and follow him.

Significantly, the evidence for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection comes to us from eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses. Significantly, too, historians and scholars who don't succumb to anti-miraculous bias argue convincingly that the records concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are believable.

The focus of Islam is the man Muhammad and the Qur'an, the allegedly true and complete revelation from God. Muhammad doesn't claim to be God; he claims to be God's latest and greatest prophet.

According to Muhammad, Jesus is an important prophet, but not God in human flesh. Nor did Jesus die on the cross (somebody else did) and so Jesus didn't resurrect bodily after death. Muhammad dies and stays dead.

Significantly, all the Qur'an's revelations about Jesus come to Muhammad 600 years after Jesus and 1,000 kilometers away via an (alleged) angel.

Significantly, too, Muhammad's life reveals an extremely violent man bent on world domination by force—and he teaches others to be and do likewise. (It's interesting that the present leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Studies.)

Muhammad ordered his followers to kill "infidels," i.e., those who don't agree with his views about himself and the Qur'an.

Moreover, Muhammad ordered various assassinations. On one occasion, he ordered the assassination of a mother of five (killed while she was breastfeeding one of her children). Also, Muhammad beheaded over 500 Jewish men and teenage boys, while his followers sold women and children into slavery.

Unlike Jesus, who shed his own blood for others to spread his message of reconciliation to God, Muhammad shed the blood of others to impose his message.

Also, Muhammad had a low view of women (their testimony is worth half that of a man, more women than men will be in hell), and he married a girl when she was six, consummating the marriage three years later.

So, Jesus or Muhammad?

I respect my Muslim friends and neighbours, and I will defend their right to exercise religious freedom (within what Princeton philosopher Robert P. George calls "the broad limits of justice and the requirements of the common good"). Nevertheless, I choose Jesus.

Significantly, the historical evidences for Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are close to the events temporally and geographically, in fact, closer than Muhammad's—the Qur'an's—claims to the contrary (because, as I mentioned, the historical evidences for Jesus contain accounts of eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses, whereas the Qur'an's testimony comes 600 years later and 1,000 kilometres away).

Thus, the evidence for Jesus allows me to take Jesus seriously as God in human flesh.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Recommended resources: 

• William Kilpatrick, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism (book)
• Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (book)
• Robert Spencer et al., Islam: What the West Needs to Know (online video)
• R.C. Sproul & Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (book)
• David Wood, Answering Muslims (website)

 See, too, my Apologia columns on Islam:

• Islam (September 4, 2014)
• Questioning Islam isn't Islamophobia (November 13, 2014)
• Islam and Christianity (March 16, 2017)

Questioning Islam isn't Islamophobia

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, November 13, 2014

Questioning Islam isn't Islamophobia

Let's be clear on this: Muslims are people we should love and respect.

Though I disagree deeply with Islam, it seems to me that love of neighbour requires respect for those with whom one disagrees. So kudos to the folks in Cold Lake, Alberta, who helped clean up a recently vandalized mosque.

But let's be clear on this, too: having reasonable, evidence-based concerns about Islam—especially when adherents closely follow the violent life and teachings of Muhammad—is not an instance of Islamophobia.

Please notice I definitely am NOT saying that all Muslims are monolithic in their views, that all Muslims are supporters of ISIS or other terrorists, or that any Muslims should be treated with prejudice or in any way unjustly.

Rather, I am saying that we need to do some careful thinking.

I saw a meme circulating on the internet recently. The meme had two pictures with a caption under each. The first picture was of a meeting of several white-robed-white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members. The caption: "No-one thinks that these people are representative of Christians."

The second picture (immediately below the first) was of a dozen black-garbed-black-masked ISIS fighters with weapons at the ready. The caption: "So why do so many people think that these people are representative of Muslims?"

The apparent implication: just as the KKK isn't Christian, so too ISIS isn't Islamic.

Let's pause and think.

Most or all the Christians and Muslims I know are decent people, and, yes, we should protect them from being misrepresented. So far so good.

But the questions we should be asking are these: Does the KKK actually follow the example and teachings of Jesus? (Answer: clearly no.) Does ISIS actually follow the example and teachings of Muhammad? (Answer: very apparently yes.)

The more I learn about the life and teachings of Muhammad, the more I'm convinced that Muhammad was an extremely violent man bent on world domination by force—and he teaches others to be and do likewise. It's interesting that the present leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Studies.

Unlike Jesus, who shed his own blood for others to spread his message, Muhammad shed the blood of others to impose his message.

A phobia is typically an irrational or ungrounded fear or hatred. Consider arachnophobia, an irrational ungrounded fear or hatred of spiders. Clearly, it's possible to have reasonable, non-phobic concerns about some spiders if the spiders display evidence of being harmful or lethal to humans.

In recent years I've seen too many public discussions shut down because people who raise important questions are dismissed as "phobic" when in fact they're not. The if-you-disagree-then-you're-phobic card is a smokescreen against truth, and it misleads popular audiences. (So I want to help nip it in the bud.)

In view of ISIS and its close affiliation with Muhammad's violent life and teachings, the challenge before us is threefold: (1) we should encourage Muslims who do not emulate Muhammad's violence to continue not emulating Muhammad's violence; (2) we should question Islam (Muslims’ religion) because it elevates Muhammad as someone to be emulated; and (3) we should do 1 and 2 in such ways that show love and respect to Muslims.

Yes, this is no small challenge. It also isn't Islamophobia.

Speaking truth and loving others can—and should—go hand in hand.

Recommended resources:

● William Kilpatrick, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism (book)

● Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (book)

● Robert Spencer et al., Islam: What the West Needs to Know (online video)

● R.C. Sproul & Abdul Saleeb, The Dark Side of Islam (book)

● David Wood, Answering Muslims (website)

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Islam

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, September 4, 2014

Islam

I've been thinking about Islam lately, to better understand ISIS/ the Islamic State. Let's look at four topics: Jesus and Muhammad, jihad, "religion of peace," and terrorists.

1. Jesus and Muhammad

Jesus is an important prophet, according to Islam, but Jesus is not God in human flesh, contrary to Christianity.

Also, Jesus didn't die on the cross (somebody else did) and Jesus didn't resurrect bodily after death—all this according to the Qur'an, written in another country 600 years after the events. (Note: Christianity's New Testament evidences are closer to the events geographically and in time because they contain accounts of eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses.)

The focus of Islam is the man Muhammad, who is (allegedly) God's latest and greatest prophet. Significantly, whereas Jesus shed his own blood for others, Muhammad shed the blood of others.

2. Jihad

Is jihad a holy war against unbelievers (infidels) or merely a personal spiritual struggle? Consider these observations from Irving Hexham, a well-respected professor of religious studies at University of Calgary, from his book Understanding World Religions (2011):

"[T]he popular milk-and-water version of Islam found in most religious studies texts [in Western universities] is, to say the least, misleading. Jihad is indeed primarily a form of warfare in defense of Islam [i.e., it's not merely a spiritual/ personal struggle against one's carnal desires]."

According to Hexham, "This means that, however much one may disagree with the methods of people like Osama bin Laden [ISIS, etc.], it is highly misleading to dismiss them as 'extremists' or argue that they 'don't understand Islam,' as some writers suggest."

Hexham adds: "The truth is, bin Laden [ISIS, etc.] have decided that Islam is under threat from the West and that Western values are undermining Muslim societies. Therefore, in their own eyes, they are fighting a legitimate war, or jihad, in defense of Islam."

3. "Religion of peace"

When Muslims talk about Islam being a "religion of peace," peace isn't what we in the West usually think. It's not live and let live.

Hexham writes: "For Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace, because the imposition of Islamic rule brings areas under Muslim control to peace and order in accordance with Islamic teachings about the will of God. Thus it is a Pax Islamica, which imposes peace by dominating all opponents by force or arms."

Hexham concludes: "it seems clear that to say that 'Islam is a religion of peace' is not the same thing as saying that 'Islam is a peaceful religion.'"

4. Terrorists

So, are all Muslims terrorists? Answer: No, definitely not.

Zane Pratt, a Christian missionary to central Asia, is author of the article, "10 things every Christian should know about Islam." Pratt (correctly) observes: "The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists."

Pratt adds: "In fact, normal Islamic religious law forbids the intentional killing of non-combatants in battle. It also forbids suicide. It's a small minority view that allows these things, and it's a small minority who engage in terrorist activities."

But let's pause a moment. According to Pratt, "it's a small minority [of Muslims] who engage in terrorist activity." Yet, according to Hexham, it is "highly misleading to dismiss them [this small minority] as 'extremists' or argue that they 'don't understand Islam.'"

Enter: the need to think carefully.

Review: (1) Islam denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ, who spread his message peacefully, but Islam admires Muhammad, who spread his message violently; (2) those Muslims who take jihad as killing non-Muslims understand Islam and are not extremists; (3) Islam, as a "religion of peace," tends to view "peace" as submission to, i.e., forceful domination by, Islamic rule; (4) the vast majority of Muslims are (truly) peaceful.

What should we do? I recommend that we show love to Muslims, pray for them, discern truth, plus speak truth with gentleness and respect.

I also recommend Nabeel Qureshi's book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity (2014).

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

War or peace?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, August 21, 2014

War or peace?

Which would you choose: war or peace? Peace, surely.

But what about these options: war or a peace at home which permits a murderous tyranny in other countries, a tyranny bent on world conquest?

In such a scenario, if peaceful diplomatic efforts are ineffective and cost the lives of large and growing numbers of innocents, I would choose war—just war.

I would choose just war as a last resort, with reluctance, to protect innocents from evil aggressors. Lethal force would be limited to what's needed, protecting non-combatants, aiming for a just peace.

Bear with me as I address three objections.

Objection 1. The Bible commands "Do not kill."

No, the Bible commands "Do not murder." Killing and murder are different morally. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Think of a police officer who must kill someone engaged in a deadly shooting spree in a school. The police officer doesn't murder; the killer of the students murders. The police officer kills the murderer to protect innocents; the murderer kills innocents. The police officer kills justly; the murderer kills unjustly.

Objection 2. Jesus said: "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Yes, Jesus said this, but this has to do with personal relationships, not matters of government. It has to do with a backhand slap to the face, which in Jesus' culture is an insult. It means that if someone insults you, suck it up.

Context is important. Jesus is talking to individuals about how to relate to one another within a society ruled by a foreign power. Jesus is not talking about the affairs of state. (About the affairs of state, Paul in Romans 13 says the state legitimately bears the sword and is God’s agent of wrath.)

C. S. Lewis, in his essay "Why I am not a Pacifist," points out that Jesus' audience consists of a "private people in a disarmed nation" and "war was not what they would have been thinking of."

Also, Lewis asks:  "Does anyone suppose that our Lord’s hearers understood him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?" For Lewis, context renders such an understanding impossible.

The turn-the-other-cheek passage, then, doesn't mean we shouldn't use force to protect others.

Interestingly, Jesus even commends a centurion—a soldier—for his faith.

Objection 3. Aren't we supposed to love our neighbours? Doesn't love preclude war?

Yes, we should love our neighbours. No, love doesn't preclude war.

Here I side with Augustine (354-430 AD). According to Augustine, love of neighbour sometimes requires that we use violence to protect our neighbour, as when our neighbour is threatened by an assailant.

In the name of love, according to Augustine, we may have to use military force—a lethal force—to stop an army from murdering innocent neighbours.

Reminder: Not all killing is murder. Think again of the good police officer who justly kills a rampaging killer of innocents. Soldiers—just soldiers—are like that good police officer.

Of course, much more can (and should) be said.

I am neither a warmonger nor a pacifist. I believe that sometimes violent force is justified—as in police situations and on a larger scale when military force is needed—to protect innocents from aggressive, murderous thugs.

Just war is never completely just, to be sure, and it's terrible.

But a so-called "peace" that permits large and growing numbers of innocent men, women, and children to be raped, tortured, cut in half, beheaded, and slaughtered is worse—much worse.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. After high school, Hendrik served for three years as an infantryman in the Canadian Armed Forces. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.) 

Further reading:

• Daniel M. Bell, Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the Tradition in the Church rather than the State
• J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition
• C. S. Lewis, "Why I am not a Pacifist," in The Weight of Glory (etc.)
• J. Warner Wallace, "Is Jesus a pacifist?"