From the President: Interrogating Islam… & Ourselves

By Dr. Chris Seiple on 03 February 2004

The headline grabbed me: "Saudi Interrogators Try Gentler Approach." It seems that Saudi police are now using "religious reorientation" for suspected al-Qaeda members. "Once we connect with them," a Saudi official explained, "the interrogators slowly hand them over to a more moderate cleric, who sits with them and goes over what the Quran says and what the traditions of the prophets are." It is an approach that has recently contributed to the renunciation of violence by two militant Saudi clerics.¹

In other words, a closer interpretation of the Quran — by Muslims for Muslims — is capable of yielding tolerance, and security. This possibility is simply not on the radar screen of most American Christians. Behind closed Christian doors, and sometimes outside them, too many American Christians are still speaking of Islam as if its history, theology, and culture represent only one thing: war. Jerry Falwell may have apologized for his infamous remarks on 60 Minutes — that the Prophet Mohammed "was a terrorist… a man of war"² — but, truth be told, they remain indicative of widespread attitudes about contemporary Islam.

We can do better. In my own journey to better understand Islam, and myself, I have come to three realizations.

1. The Menace in the Mirror

Before skeptically asking, "Is Islam a religion of peace?" we must look in the mirror. Christian critics of Islam often read the Quran selectively to try to "prove" that it is a religion of violence.³ But what if Muslim critics of Christianity returned the favor with the Bible? Is it fair to consider all of Christianity in light of Matthew 10:34 where Jesus states: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"?

Is Christianity a religion of peace? Consider, as does much of the Muslim world, Christianity's role in the development and domination of the "West." In Europe — from the Crusades to the 30 years War (1618-1648) to colonialism — Christianity has been partner with, if not catalyst to, conflict. In America, although our ancestors fled the religious wars of Europe to practice their faith "freely," many ironically used the freedom to immediately set up new religious establishments. It was only in the 19th century that religious freedom in the modern sense began to really take root. Even then there was little time or tolerance for people who stood in the way of America's exceptional expansion, domestically and internationally.

We should not be surprised that the rest of the world associates imperialism, and often violence, with the dominant faith of Europeans and Americans — Christianity. Unfortunately, the Talmudic adage remains true: "We see the world not as it is, but as we are." Not that we have to agree, but are we capable of seeing ourselves as others see us?

2. The Mistake of Monolith

It is human nature to reduce something that is complex and perhaps threatening to a monolith. It is much easier to hate, and mobilize against, a stereotype than to understand the inevitable nuance behind it. Many Americans, for example, succumbed to this temptation in the Vietnam era, seeing a communist monolith in China, Russia and Vietnam instead of viewing them as distinct nations whose historic rivalries were only overcome by their mutual opposition to the U.S. We are now in danger of doing the same with Islam, seeing only the boogeyman we want to see. But we must not make simplistic assumptions about a Muslim monolith.

The Vatican's Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was recently asked: "Is the confrontation between the Western world and the Muslim world a clash of civilizations?" His reply:

Islam does not exist as one solid bloc. There is no Magisterium of Islam, nor a centralized Islamic constitution. The Quran furnishes certain common referents for the Islamic world. But it gives rise to different interpretations, and Islam becomes concrete within very diverse cultural contexts… To speak of a confrontation of cultures is sometimes correct: in the rebuke of the West we find the consequences of the past, when Islam was subjected to the domination of the European countries. We can thus reach the point of terrible extremes of fanaticism. This is one of the faces of Islam; it is not all of Islam. There are also Muslims who seek a peaceful dialogue with Christians. Consequently, it is important to judge the various aspects of a situation which is worrisome for all sides.

Ratzinger heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (descendant of the infamous Inquisition) — if he can demonstrate nuance in evaluating Islam, surely we can as well.

3. The Making of Moderates

We rightly insist on being true to our faith. But we won't encourage moderation in Muslims by disrespecting their right to be true to theirs. At the Institute for Global Engagement, we have 11 Principles for Christian engagement of the world, the first of which is: "Know your own faith at its richest and deepest best, and enough about your neighbor's to respect it." Evangelical leaders' broad-brushed denunciations of Islam not only betray the best of the Christian faith, they encourage a monolithic view of Christianity among Muslims.

Akbar Ahmed, a Pakistani Muslim and anthropologist who teaches Islamic Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., has said that most Muslims perceive Americans as having a Bible in one hand and the sword in the other. He is a friend of mine, and when I asked him why Muslims see Americans this way he replied frankly: "When American Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jerry Vines, Pat Robertson and especially Franklin Graham (because he is the son of the most famous American Christian and because he gave the prayer at President Bush's inauguration) make denigrating statements about Islam — and they are not consistently refuted — they confirm the worst fears of Muslims everywhere."⁴

In this context, we also need to be careful of how we go about encouraging Muslim moderates. Recently I had the opportunity to attend a wonderful event at the University of Pennsylvania, "Choosing Hope: A Dialogue in Search of Common Ground." There I saw one friend, Akbar Ahmed, publicly discuss faith and tolerance with another friend, Dr. Judea Pearl (father of Danny Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was forced to say "I am a Jew" before Muslim extremists murdered him in Pakistan). After two years of coming to grips with Islam and the tragic death of his son, Judea concluded astutely that it is not in the interest of the West to encourage "reformation" within Islam — that word reeks of condescension, and Christianity.

Muslims are going to go through the process anyway (using, as Akbar noted, the process of "Ijtihad," or Islamic reinterpretation, as a path to Islamic renewal). Judea argued that the best way to combat extremism, in any religious tradition, is to encourage "Neo-Fundamentalism." He exhorted the audience to return to the Holy Scriptures, to maximize the inclusivity of their faith without sacrificing its substance. Pretty good advice.

As we consider Islam, we should constantly interrogate ourselves: Is our religion a faith or an ideology? If it's a faith, then we should live it, correcting those who would stereotype Islam or Christianity; our shared hopes for a future of tolerance and security depend on it.

Last updated 12 January 2009