What is ISIS?

After last week’s gruesome killings in France, some have concluded that the group which claimed responsibility is a group of psychopaths. In the past year, President Obama even referred to this group, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team”. My research leads me to believe otherwise.
The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is a religious group with a well-reasoned beliefs. As mentioned in an earlier commentary, ISIS is committed to a seventh century legal environment (caliphate) and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. 

Agreed, ISIS has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers comes from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Graeme Wood, in a lengthy exposé of ISIS in The Atlantic, contends, “virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.”

ISIS is identified with the jihadist wing of a branch of Sunni Islam called Salafism, after the Arabic al salaf al salih, the “pious forefathers.” These forefathers are the Prophet himself and his earliest adherents, whom Salafis honor and emulate as the models for all behavior, including warfare and family life.

Princeton University scholar Bernard Haykel, is a leading expert on Islamic theology in ISIS. According to Haykel, “the ranks of ISIS are deeply infused with religious vigor. Qur’anic quotations are ubiquitous.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State (ISIS) has distorted the texts of Islam as “preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance.”

In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts like, slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings. 

Like today’s ISIS followers, early Muslims were surrounded by non-Muslims. For this reason, ISIS believes it is perfectly in order to follow the practices of early Islam. According to Professor Haykel, “Islamic State fighters are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day” (The Atlantic, March 2015).

The Qur’an specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Qur’an’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The prophet Muhammad imposed and practiced these rules.

Leaders of ISIS see emulating Muhammad as a strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. What’s striking is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which ISIS reads these texts. Haykel contends, “there is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”

ISIS believes its behavior is consistent with the turmoil expected in the last days. Both branches of Islam believe a period of global turmoil must precede the coming of their Mahdi. Both branches are committed to hasten the coming of this Prophet.

ISIS members devoutly believe that they are fighting in a cosmic war in which they are on the side of good, which allows them to kill anyone they perceive to be standing in their way, or representing evil. 

Within recent years, thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to Syria, to join ISIS. Many want to become members of the new caliphate (Islamic State). The last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire, which reached its peak in the 16th century and then experienced a long decline, until the founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, demolished it in 1924.

This new caliphate must be preceded by global turmoil. Such turmoil is what we saw in France last week, in Kenya a few months ago and continues to be promised in many major cities of the world.  

ISIS has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq. There was much celebration when Dabiq was conquered. It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo.

Following this battle in Dabiq, some believe an anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from a region in eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to earth, kill Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

Who Owns The Western Wall?

Every year, millions of visitors to Jerusalem, visit the Western Wall. A few years ago, my ENT specialist was among those visitors. Like thousands of Jews, he took his son there to mark his Bar Mitzvah. Soldiers serving in the Israel Defense Forces swear loyalty to their nation and homeland at the Western Wall Plaza.  

People from all over the world pay their respects to the Jewish people’s magnificent history by visiting this special site. The ancient, 2,000-year-old stones of the Western Wall have witnessed the Jewish people’s birth, exile, and redemption. This is where the Jewish nation’s past mingles with its hopes for the future.

How then could Muslims claim that the Western Wall is a part of the Al Aqsa Mosque compound in the Old City? The claim was made a few days ago before UNESCO, the United Nations’ Paris-based agency that tries to protect cultural treasures around the world.  

In 2010, the British Advertising Standard Agency ruled that an Israeli tourism advertisement containing a picture of the Western Wall with the Dome of the Rock in the background was misleading. The agency felt that the ad implied that the area in which the Wall was located belonged to Israel – for the agency that was false advertising. 

To whom does the Wall really belong – to the Jews or to the Muslims? What is the Western Wall anyway? 

In the year 37 BCE, Herod was appointed king in Jerusalem by the Romans – shortly after he initiated a huge renovation project for the Temple. He hired many workers who toiled to make the Temple more magnificent. He widened the area of the Temple Mount and built four support walls around it. The Western Wall is the western support wall built during this widening of the Temple Mount Plaza.

Just a few days ago I shared with a group of students what Israeli archaeologists found in 2007. They discovered the source of the huge stones King Herod used to reconstruct the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The stones were found at a quarry, along with coins and pottery, dating back to King Herod. Geological and other tests clearly link the present Western Wall to the quarry.

The Second Temple (which King Herod built) was destroyed in the year 70 CE. Despite the destruction that took place, all four Temple Mount support walls remained standing. Throughout the generations since the Temple’s destruction, the Western Wall was the remnant closest to the site of the Temple’s Holy of Holies that was accessible to Jews. Therefore, it became a place of prayer and yearning for Jews around the world.  

In the year 135 CE, the Romans crushed a Jewish uprising and seized total control of Jerusalem - the Jews lost official links to the region. The Romans renamed the region Palestine. 

The name Palestine was taken from Israel's most hated historical enemy, the Philistines, and was given to the area by the Romans as a means of humiliating the Jews to show them the land no longer belonged to them. With a destroyed Temple and no official homeland, the Jews found much solace in the Western Wall, the only remnant of the destroyed Temple. 

Many of those emotions were shattered when the Muslims invaded the Holy Lands in 638. By 691, at the order of Ymayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik, the Dome of the Rock was completed on the site where the Jewish Temple was destroyed. As is evident today, the Western Wall was retained as the foundation.  

The Muslim presence remained unchallenged until the Crusades in the eleventh century. The Western Wall never seemed important to Muslims because they were in control and the Jews were not strong enough to challenge them. However, the Jewish interest in the Wall never died.

That ongoing interest was evident again in 1929 when violence erupted because a divider was placed at the Wall. In 1948, in keeping with a UN decision, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, including the Western Wall, fell to Jordanian hands. Jewish homes were destroyed and among those killed was the Western Wall’s first rabbi who refused to leave the Wall or his home - he was killed in the bombings.

The Old City of Jerusalem, and the Western Wall within it, were not in Jewish hands from the War of Independence in 1948 until the Six Day War in 1967. During those 19 years of Jordanian rule, Jews were not able to reach the Wall and prayed in front of its ancient stones. 

During the more than one thousand years Jerusalem was under Muslim rule, the Wall was often used as a garbage dump, so as to humiliate the Jews who visited it. However, following the Six Day War of 1967, The Western Wall and Temple Mount were liberated, the city of Jerusalem was reunified, and the Jewish people were again able to come to the Western Wall to pray.

The recent attempt at the UN for Muslims to regain control of the Western Wall, would most likely deprive Jews of their most holy site and return the area to a garbage dump.

Furthermore, to justify the return of Islamic control of the Wall would be to legitimize the Muslim invasion of Jerusalem in the seventh century. Such justification would also ratify the UN’s insensitivity to Israel’s religious heritage. In 1948, when establishing boundaries for the new nation, the UN was wrong to divide Israel’s 3,000 year-old claim to the city of Jerusalem.  

In terms of modern history, Israel’s return to her ancestral home is phenomenal. Unlike under the reign of Joshua in the Old Testament, she cannot kill those who shared the land with her, before independence. The nation must pursue peaceful co-existence. That requires a respectful use of sacred sites, including the Western Wall.

Apocalyptic Islam!

There is a difference between radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam. Radical Islam is a militant, politically activist ideology whose ultimate goal is to create a worldwide community, or caliphate of Muslim believers. Adherents of Radical Islam insist on a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Qur’an. They resist progress in human rights, gender-equality and democratic reforms. 

Apocalyptic Islam is different. It is not driven by political ideology as Radical Islam. Rather, it is a theological ideology with a specific emphasis on End Times or Eschatology. Islam believes that their messiah, known as the Mahdi, will come at any moment. According to Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America: “The coming of the Mahdi is established doctrine for both Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and indeed for all humanity.”

Both Shi’a and Sunni branches of Islam have different strategies to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. Both branches of Islam believe a period of global turmoil must precede the coming of their Mahdi. Both main branches are committed to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. According to Shi’a Muslims, the Mahdi, also known as the Twelfth Imam, is a great spiritual savior.

There are many signs that will precede this Mahdi, “a general and very important sign is that he will come at a time when there is great confutation, intense disputes and violent deaths. When people are afflicted by disturbance and experiencing great fear. It is then that Imam Mahdi will be sent.”

As they work to expedite the coming of the Mahdi, ISIS members, representing Sunni Islam, devoutly believe that they are fighting in a cosmic war in which they are on the side of good, which allows them to kill anyone they perceive to be standing in their way. 

Furthermore, they believe that they are the vanguard, fighting a religious war, which Allah has determined will be won by the forces of true Islam. In an upcoming book, authors Berger and Stern explain that "violent apocalyptic groups, tend to see themselves as participating in a cosmic war between good and evil, in which moral rules do not apply." 

Iran, representing Shiite Islam, uses a different strategy to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi. It was former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who attributed his role to that of a forerunner for the Mahdi. He believed he was told by the prophet Mohammed that he was “the chosen one to hasten the return of the Muslim’s messiah by creating chaos throughout the world.” 

Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, warned in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece a few years ago that “President Ahmadinejad seems to believe that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam.” As a theocracy, Iran is uniquely poised to administer this apocalyptic role.

New York Times bestseller Joel Rosenberg contends that Iran’s purpose for wanting to build up its nuclear arms program is to be more equipped for the coming of the Mahdi. For Iran, the destruction of Israel, representing Judaism, and America, representing Christianity, is critical in its pre-Mahdi mission. 

According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”

When asked to comment on Apocalyptic Islam, Joel Rosenberg said, “For the first time in human history, we now are faced with two nation-states whose leaders are driven by an end-of-the-world [theology]. ISIS is trying to build the end-of-the-world kingdom, or caliphate, for the Mahdi to come and rule. They are not waiting, like the Iranians are, to build genocidal weapons. ISIS is trying to bring about genocide of the infidels right now.”

Egyptian born Dr. Michael Youssef told the Christian Post recently, "To be quite honest, I am not really afraid as much from jihadists as I am fearing that the evangelical church is losing its moorings on the biblical authority for all kinds of different reasons. The challenge from Islam can only be met by a strong Christian church, rather than a weak and indecisive, spineless Gospel preaching."

Like Muslims, Christians believe we are living in the end times. However, the instructions from our Commanding Officer, Jesus Christ, is to ensure that we share the message of salvation with the entire world. We are “to occupy until He comes.” In other words, we prepare for His coming with vigilance, not violence.

Hoax or History?

Muslims do not believe Jesus died as the Bible claims He did. The Qur’an explicitly states (4:157-159): “And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.’ Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.”
In commenting of this text, Baidawi, a highly esteemed thirteenth-century Muslim jurist and exegete said: “It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus]...then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him [Jesus] that he would take him up to heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, ‘which one of you is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?’”

This claim of the non-death of Jesus is an argument of history, not only theology. The claim is alleging that the New Testament is wrong to state that Jesus was killed by means of crucifixion – Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe someone else died in His place. Among other things, the Islamic claim is a challenge to the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament record. 

The implications of this no-death claim is too serious to go unnoticed. Apart from challenging the credibility of the New Testament, the view is suggesting that all Christian doctrines that are based on Christ’s death on the cross are false, in that there was no death on the cross. In addition, the Christian claim of the resurrection is a hoax, in that there can be no resurrection if there were no death. 

Furthermore, all the Old Testament references to the death of Jesus were misinterpreted. Added to these would be all the references to the death of Jesus, following the death of Jesus. In essence, the Christian Bible is unreliable, in that it records an event that did not take place. Some Muslims explain this dilemma by suggesting that the Early Church adjusted the records to fit their theology.

However, other than Christian writers, non-religious historians reported on the death of Jesus. Housed in the British Museum is a document entitled, “the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.” In this letter, written about thirty years after the death of Jesus, Mara asks, “what advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?” 

Even the Jewish Babylonian Talmud states, “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to support the death of Jesus, Islam is not the only ones supporting the non-death theory. As early as the second century, Gnostic Basilides denied the death of Jesus. He taught that at the crucifixion, Jesus changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews, mistaking Simon for Jesus, nailed him [Simon] to the cross. Basilides contended that Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven.

In the third century, Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nain, whom Jesus raised from the dead, was put to death in Jesus’ place.

Many Muslim scholars cite the Gospel of Barnabas to support the Qur’anic teaching that Jesus did not die as told in the New Testament. Ironically, those who cite this sixteenth-century source, think they are quoting from the Letter of Barnabas, written in the first half of the second century. Whereas the Letter of Barnabas affirmed the death of Jesus and was considered to be among the most important post-New Testament writings, the same cannot be said of The Gospel of Barnabas.

The Gospel of Barnabas contends that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (Section 217). This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since so many of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus. Interestingly, most religious scholars will concur that The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake.

From my research, no credible historical source would challenge the crucifixion of Jesus. Many would debate the significance of His death – but not the fact of His dying on a cross. 

Apart from the clear and frequent references to the death of Jesus in the New Testament, extra-biblical Jewish and Roman testimonies affirm that Jesus died. For instance, Tacitus’ Annals speak of “Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”

In the second century Justin Martyr referred to the “Acts of Pontius Pilate” under whom “nails were fixed in Jesus’ hands and feet on the cross...” Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote that “there was a wise man who was called Jesus ...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.”

We need not deny the death of Jesus – to do so would be to deny what actually happened. Unlike other deaths, the death of Jesus does not mean defeat. Rather, the death of Jesus means victory. That is why He gave a victory shout from the cross.

Prophet or Politician?

During his speech before the U.S. Congress last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the Jewish Purim holiday. He cited the biblical deliverance of Jews from genocide under ancient Persian Empire rule and called attention to the story of a Jewish girl named Esther, who rose to become Queen of Persia.

Queen Esther, a courageous Jewish woman exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The plot was foiled, our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

According to the Old Testament book of Esther, during the time of King Ahasuerus, Haman, a minister to the king, sought to annihilate the empire’s Jews in retaliation for being insulted by a Jewish man named Mordecai. The man learned of Haman’s plan for retaliation and warned his cousin Esther, who had become queen of the empire but whose Jewish identity had been kept secret. 

On the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, following several days of fasting and prayer, the Jews rose up against their enemies and were victorious. The Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated every year in early spring to commemorate the Jewish rise against the Persian Empire – the Prime Minister’s speech coincided with that annual observance.  

Some 2,500 years earlier the Esther story unfolded. Then, as today, the threat against Israel is real. Instead of a Haman scheming to kill the Jews, it’s Iranian mullahs who are accused of plotting to wipe Israel off the map, and being aided in the process by the soon realization of a goal more than 20 years in the making – obtaining a nuclear arsenal.

In a November 14 sermon aired on Iran’s state-run television, Ayatollah Ali Movahedi-Kermani made the following statement: “The Sejjil ballistic missile can hit and raze to the ground any place in Israel, as well as any American base in the region.” Crowds listening to the speech shouted: “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”

Like the biblical character Esther, Prime Minister Netanyahu sees himself in a strategic position. Esther’s cousin Mordecai asked her, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” 

To this Esther replied: “...I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:12-16). Other than Esther, the Jews seemed to have no other option – they were defenseless. That is no longer the case.

According to Business Insider, Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East, followed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition to being battle-tested against a variety of enemies, the Israel Defense Forces have a qualitative edge over all other militaries in the region, as well as a highly-capable air force. "Pilot to pilot, airframe to airframe, the Israeli air force is the best in the world."

From that position of military strength, much restraint is necessary from Israel. Despite the current divisions among countries in the Middle East, any aggression from Israel, can position the nation to become a common enemy – that will certainly unite militants in the region.

One must not forget that the regional dislike for Israel is less political and more ideological. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what some call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

The term “Apocalyptic Islam” introduces the topic of end-of-the-world religious ideology. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”

Imam Mahdi is a messianic figure often referred to as the twelfth imam in Shiite Islam. According to one Islamic website, there are at least four signs that will precede the coming of Imam Mahdi. All of these signs include some kind of battle. Interestingly, both ISIS and Iran see themselves as key players in these apocalyptic battles.

Some analysts believe “Iran is controlled by religious hardliners afflicted with a messianic fervor whose primary goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi. 

This is to be accomplished by annihilating Israel, waging war against infidels and sowing chaos. The price for Iran may be national martyrdom, for which its causalities will be richly rewarded in the afterlife, while survivors will enjoy the favor of the returned Mahdi.”

Freedom of Religion?

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of worship implies the right to gather, pray and sing. In essence, it is the liberty to conduct religious activities within areas designated for such practices.

Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.

However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.

The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.

The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action. 

James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. 

In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” 

Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state. 

Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.

For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity. 

Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child. 

This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.

In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.

Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.

Another Beheading

The recent beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff in Iraq were savage acts. Many watched the videos of their murders by Islamist State militants and were horrified. Muslim organizations around the world distanced themselves from the militants and decried the brutal slaying, making it clear that the acts did not represent Islam.

Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.

Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”

The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents. 

According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).

Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).

In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).

Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”

So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.

For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.

Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.

Peace in Palestine?

For many Christians, peace in Palestine is impossible. They share the view that without Jesus, the Prince of Peace, peace in the Middle East is not possible. If that were the case then, why “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6)? Furthermore, was it not Paul who taught us to pray for “those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...”?

Christians should always pursue peaceful options. Agreed, the Israeli-Palestinian scenario is very complex and at times appears to be an exercise in futility. However, we must not forget that the conflict first involves people and not land. For this reason, greater attempts must be made to foster ideas among people in cross-border activities.

Ron Pundak, in the Palestine-Israel Journal (Volume 18 No. 2 & 3, 2012) makes the point, “in order for peace to come about, decisions need to be made by state officials at the highest levels. But in order for it to be digested, accepted and implemented, grassroots activities must take place before, during and after an agreement.”

Such grassroots activities have been in place for many years. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one can find people-to-people peace building activities taking place in various forms and at various levels. Cases of dialog between non-official, yet influential individuals from both sides, continue to exist. 

Because of our dependence on the media for information, we are often subject to the agenda of the media. That agenda focuses primarily on diplomatic conversations among politicians. That level of diplomacy is necessary but cannot be effective without strong grassroots activity. 

In preparing this blog, I became so much more aware of ongoing attempts among academics, research groups and entrepreneurs – all determined to foster better relationships among Arabs and Jews. Through the dissemination of information and while making the public see that there is a realistic plan as well as a credible partner on both sides, the architects of grassroots efforts hope to change the political mindset of the people, who would then themselves pressure their political leaders to change. 

For instance, some change can begin in the media. Joint educational programs for journalists or young leaders are one way of reaching the masses indirectly. Another is by establishing “values of peace” through meetings between school children, joint sporting events and the performing arts. 

My research tells me that there is some dialog taking place between professionals. There is joint-discussion on topics of mutual interest like the environment, water and agriculture. Limited dialog is also taking place among doctors who jointly conduct breast cancer research, as well as other areas of medical science. While the participants in these activities mainly discuss professional matters, they still create an environment that is conducive to changing attitudes regarding each other and to the spreading of knowledge and ideas.

The most difficult area of dialog is religion. Both Jews and Arabs claim a common heritage in Abraham. As descendants of Abraham, Muslims believe the promises God made to Abraham, were intended for them. Jews disagree. They believe the promises were intended for the descendants of Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham’s other son who became the father of the Arab world. The spirit of disagreement and conflict was seen very early in the history of both groups. Interestingly, it was said of Ishmael and his people, “and they lived in hostility toward all their brothers” (Genesis 25:18).

Hundreds of years later, Mohammad appears on the scene. He is born in Mecca and as an Arab has a cultural link to Ishmael/Abraham. However, when Mohammad was born, followers of Abraham’s monotheism in the Arab world were called Jews.

Even a cursory study of Islam, the religion practiced by most Arabs, will show that Mohammad was unable to convince Arabian Jews that he was a prophet sent from the God of Abraham. Actually, monotheism as practiced by Abraham, was far removed from what was practiced by Arabs. 

Those religious differences brought about hostility between Islam and Judaism – and that hostility continues to be evident today. For example, in Islam’s Hadiths (Bukhari 52:177), “Allah's Apostle said, the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’" 

Muslims who adhere to that ideology contend that there should be no attempt at peace with Jews. This provides fuel for Hamas and other Muslims who resent Jews. Thankfully, all Muslims do not adhere to this ideology – with such Muslims, it is possible to live peacefully with Jews.

Palestine and Palestinians

Palestine is not a country. Historically, it is a geographical region where Jewish and Arab people live. The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region. It is believed that the name was derived from the Philistines who invaded the area between the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the Common Era.

The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area, under the sovereignty of their city-states, became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy - remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

Interestingly, the term “Palestinian” was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The non-Jews of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus).

In early 1947, when the United Nations was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division. They argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.

Following the Six-Day-War (1967), there was a strategic change in language among Arabs. The term “Palestinian” was coined to lend legitimacy to claims for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

This ploy was revealed, perhaps inadvertently, in a public interview with Zahir Muhse’in, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee. In this March 31, 1977 interview, with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhse’in said: 

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Wow! In the absence of sound history, we have come to believe revisionist history – a mythic narrative that teaches that Zionists, with the support of the British, have stolen Palestinian land, exiled the people, and initiated a reign of terror and ethnic cleansing.

The revisionist narrative contends that Israel as a racist, war-mongering, oppressive, apartheid state, illegally occupies Arab land and carries out genocide of an indigenous people that had stronger claim to the land than Israel itself.

That is the argument that fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is the rationale behind the preamble of Hamas’ Charter: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″.

I am not suggesting that Israel should obliterate Hamas instead. I dislike war. As a Christian, I am encouraged to pursue peace. I am also encouraged to pray for persons in leadership – “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).

However, I recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect their people. The apostle Paul, in the context of governmental authority, referred to the barbaric Roman government as “God’s servant” (Romans 13:1-7). Similarly, Israel has a responsibility to protect and pursue peace for her people.


RECOMMENDED

“Why the Jews” and “Jerusalem” (earlier blogs)
The Fight for Jerusalem by Dore Gold
Why the Jews by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.
Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg

Video: The Middle East Problem

JERUSALEM!

My prediction for 2014 – the city of Jerusalem will be in the news more than any other city in the world. At the moment, Secretary of State John Kerry is on his tenth visit to Jerusalem since assuming office one year ago. Kerry has visited Jerusalem more than any other foreign city since taking office.

What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”

History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.

The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.

Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.

There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.

Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.

The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.

The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.

So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.

The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.

Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”

When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).

In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.

Fellow-Christians in Egypt are in Trouble

Across Egypt, at least sixty churches have been targeted by Muslim extremists, along with Christian schools, homes, businesses and even an orphanage. Some Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals.

According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.

Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.

The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.

These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.

Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.

According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”

One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:

The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)

When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.

I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.

This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”

AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.

Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”

Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.

For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).

As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.

MUSLIMS RESPOND TO Tragedy in Boston

Last Thursday, in a powerful, uplifting speech at an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, President Obama said he went to join people to “pray and mourn and measure our loss. We also come today to reaffirm that the spirit of this city is undaunted and the spirit of this country shall remain undimmed. I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message: Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city. Every one of us stands with you,” he said.

At the conclusion of the President’s speech, the 2,000 people in the crowd leapt to their feet, some with tears streaking down their cheeks, to deliver a standing ovation. The crowd then joined in singing “America the Beautiful.”

The interfaith service at the cathedral was in keeping with a religious response to the terror attack at which three people died and more than 170 were injured when two blasts were detonated near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon.

Religious clerics have been responding because of the grief and the terrorists’ claim to be Muslims. However, unlike some previous attacks in which the perpetrators claimed to be Muslims, the reaction of Muslim clerics this time was different.

In reference to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the terrorist who died in a shoot out with the police, one Boston Muslim cleric said he would refuse to perform funeral rites for a man accused of committing so much violence. Yusufi Vali, executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in the Boston area, also refused to identify with the two killers.

The two Tsarnaev brothers, accused of the Boston bombings, occasionally attended prayer services at the Islamic Society of Boston Cambridge Masjid, a small mosque near Tamerlan’s home. In a statement from the masjid, Muslim leaders claim “the brothers never exhibited any violent sentiments or behavior in their visits to the mosque.”

In a recent interview, the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Executive Director in Florida, Hassan Shibly said, “domestically, it appears that many of those who engage in plotting acts of terror are ignorant, troubled, and mentally unstable individuals. Some have used disagreement with US foreign policy as justification for their disgusting acts, but the fact remains that such acts are unjustifiable and are due to the individual needing serious mental health counseling more than anything else. No mentally healthy individual can accept the intentional attack against innocent civilians, especially not in the name of any divine faith.”

I congratulate American Muslim leaders on this move to condemn the Boston attack. I now challenge them to go one step further and condemn the Egyptian cleric who said the attack in Boston “was definitively a jihad by mujahedeen.” As a matter of fact, the dust had not even settled on the ground at the site of the devastating explosions at the Boston Marathon finish line before Islamists started celebrating that so many people in America had been killed and injured. There were reports from Jordan and Gaza that people explicitly allied with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad joined with ordinary citizens to dance in the streets, cheer, and pass out candy.

Such celebrations are unacceptable in today’s America - and so are the organizations that participate in the celebrations. American Muslim clerics need to challenge and discontinue supporting terrorist organizations. To challenge violence in any religion is not hate speech. 

Sinem Tezyapar, a Muslim commentator got it right when she said, “history has witnessed many sick people leading others to commit atrocities, but there is one thing for certain; whatever the perpetrator or perpetrators might profess as a religion, they are not believers. If someone is capable of killing innocent people without so much as blinking an eye, then they are murderers with no fear of God. That is indisputable.”  

That perspective deserves our support as Christians. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul urged Christians to pray for persons in authority, “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). Hundreds of years earlier, while in exile, Jeremiah encouraged the Jews to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7). 

Today we are seeking peace in a hostile world. In pursuing that peace we must encourage others who are also seeking peace and condemn every attempt to challenge civility and tranquility. 

Meteorite Worship

A fifty-foot wide, ten ton meteor streaked across Russia last week. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences, the meteor entered the earth’s atmosphere at a hypersonic speed of 33,000 miles per hour shattering into pieces about 18 to 32 miles above sea level. 

The U.S. space agency, NASA, said the meteor was 33 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Reports from Russia indicate that more than 4,000 homes were damaged. According to the state-run news agency, glass shattered across more than a 75,000 square mile area. Thankfully, no one died and fewer than 1,500 persons suffered injuries, mostly from flying glass.

Whereas meteoroids are small particles from comets orbiting the sun, meteors are meteoroids that actually land on the earth’s surface. The pieces of the meteor that exploded in Russia are meteorites. Generally, meteorites are smaller than grains of sand and vaporize on passage through the atmosphere. 

According to Russian scientists, the meteor that exploded comprised of rock and a bit of iron. 

Scientists found 53 small meteorites on the surface of a lake and believe larger fragments are under water. The crash left a 26-foot wide crater in the ice on which it landed. 

It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what happened in Russia. Because of the enormity of the explosion, some have begun to attach religious significance to what happened. History confirms that it is not that unusual to associate meteors with divine intervention.

For thousands of years, meteorites were venerated as sacred objects by ancient civilizations. The spectacular explosions of meteorites, along with the light, often as bright as the sun, are so enormous that they evoke fear and awe in persons who witness such events. 

Actually, several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the huge iron meteorite responsible for Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater. Native tribes from around the world have venerated meteorites for centuries. Ancient civilizations of the western hemisphere were no exception, and there are several examples of the worship of meteorites in Greco-Roman tradition.

Palladion of Troy, as well as the Cone of Elagabalus were actual meteorites – stones that had fallen from the sky, objects from heaven, believed to contain supernatural powers. In addressing the Ephesians, the city clerk said, “...doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven (Acts 19:35)?

The Roman historian, Titus Livius, tells the story of the meteorite in Phrygia - a conical object known as the Needle of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. After the Romans conquered Phrygia, the meteorite was conveyed in a gigantic procession to Rome, where it was worshipped for another 500 years. 

Annually, millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Kaaba, a room in which a sacred black stone is housed. Each Muslim is expected to make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime and to walk around the Kaaba seven times. Pilgrims are then expected to pause at the southeastern corner of the Kaaba to complete the ritual, touching or kissing the sacred black stone. 

Venerating the black stone was practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. Muslims inherited this practice and contend that it is done to show special reverence and veneration for its dignity after the example of the Prophet Mohammed. The Qur’an actually teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:125) and some believe that the stone became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it (Burton: Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah – Vol.2, page 300). Despite this practice, Muslims contend that they do not worship the stone. 

In addressing the Athenians, the Apostle Paul confronted philosophers who thought the divine being was like gold, or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. He contended, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:29-30). In other words, our understanding of the Creator must not be equated to things He created – that is a display of ignorance. 

Scientific knowledge has helped to dispel much ignorance, thus removing the need to associate divinity with meteoric phenomena. The Apostle Paul would agree – he did not only expose religious superstition among the Athenians, he challenged them to commit to the historical Jesus – “the person you killed and God brought back to life.” Some of those who heard believed, others disagreed, and another group deferred their decision – just like we do today. 

Islamic Bullyism

Enough is enough! We’ve already lost Ambassador Chris Stevens, distinguished servicemen and suffered millions of dollars in destruction of property in several countries. Why? Some Muslims do not know how to handle dissent.

This time, we are blaming the making of an amateur film analysis of the Prophet Muhammad. On another occasion it was the alleged burning of the Qur’an at an American prison. Around the world Muslims were outraged and expressed their disgust by destroying lives and property.

In 2007, Muslims were again incensed when Salman Rushdie was being knighted by Queen Elizabeth II – Why? Rushdie wrote a book in which he criticized the Qur’an. After writing that book, Satanic Verses, a death warrant was placed on him by the Ayatollah of Iran. Soon after Rushdie’s knighthood was released, protests against the honor were expressed worldwide. The Organization to Commemorate Martyrs of the Muslim World offered $150,000 to anyone who would kill Rushdie. In addition, the General Secretary of the Islamabad Traders Association said, “we will give ten million rupees ($165,000) to anyone who beheads Rushdie.”

In each of the above cases, the problem is the same – the absence of a civil response to dissent or opposition. Rather than address this matter, many politicians and journalists have been focusing erroneously on the issues responsible for the provocation. Some analysts even believe that the irrational response to dissent is the unfortunate choice of a few opportunists or Islamic militants.

I beg to disagree. My studies clearly confirm that a militant response to opposition is rooted in Islam’s history. Much of that history can be found in the Qur’an, The Sunnah and the Hadith, original Islamic sources. Whereas the Qur’an is believed to be of divine origin, the Sunnah describes how Prophet Muhammad lived his life. Both sources are indispensable – one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them. Hadith literature means literature which consists of the narrations of the life of the Prophet and the things approved by him.

Islamic scholars would agree that from this literary base, Islamic life is shaped. I will therefore go to these sources to establish that radicalism is rooted in Islamic history and not in a few isolated cases in the twenty-first century.

Muhammad was born in 570 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. His parents died when he was still a child, leaving early parenting to his grandfather who was very religious and a leader in one of the more dominant tribes of Mecca.

As an adult, Muhammad got married to his former boss who left him quite an inheritance when she died. It was during their 25 years of marriage his religious interests peaked. During his times of meditation he felt he had received revelations from God. He gained a following in Mecca as he attempted to practice what was revealed to him.

The response from some leaders in Mecca was not cordial. Muhammad’s life was even threatened, resulting in his migration to Yathrib (Medina), some 200 miles north of Mecca. Some of those who believed his teaching migrated with him to Medina. That was where the first Mosque was established.

While in Medina, Muhammad had more revelations and sought to share these with the residents. Jews and Christians were among those who rejected his message. They questioned his legitimacy as a prophet. As Muhammad strengthened his power base in Medina he ordered or suggested the assassination of various critics.

Asma Bint Marwan was one of his critics. As a poetess she produced poems ridiculing Muhammad. His response – “will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” She was stabbed while she nursed her youngest child. Abu Afak, more than 100 years old, was murdered on the advice of Muhammad for opposing the prophet. The Hadith records the names of at least twenty-seven individuals who were murdered on Muhammad’s orders.

The Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir was ordered to leave Medina within ten days. When they refused, Muhammad’s men besieged them and starved them into submission. After several weeks they surrendered and were expelled. All their belongings and land were confiscated and distributed amongst Muhammad’s supporters. The Jews of Banu Nadir were slaughtered by the Muslims two years later in their new homes.

Time does not allow me list the wars and mass murders ordered by Muhammad. These are the references to which many militants go to justify their intolerance to any opposing views.

I would strongly encourage you to examine some of these original sources online. In addition, view the film, The Third Jihad – it’s available in a You Tube version. The issue before us is not Islam’s response to an amateur film from California; rather, it is Islam’s historic response to opposing views.

Did Jesus Die on A Cross?

Islam, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, does not believe Jesus died on a cross. As a matter of fact, Islam disagrees with the New Testament teaching that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. In Sura (chapter) 4:157-158, the Qur’an clearly denies the crucifixion:

      That they said, “We killed Christ Jesus the son    

      of Mary, the Apostle of God” – But they killed 
      Him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made
      to appear to them, And those who differ therein
      are full of doubts, With no knowledge, But only
      conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed
      him not: - Nay, God raised him up Unto
      Himself; and God Is exalted in power, wise.

Muslim scholar Sulaiman Mufasir, summarized the heart of the Islamic view when he said: “Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but God saved him from their plot” (A Prophet of Islam. Indianapolis: American Trust Publication, 1980, page 5).

 
At this point, the issue is not if Jesus died for our sins – it is, did Jesus die as the New Testament said He did? It is an issue of historical accuracy, not theological interpretation. As a matter of fact, if Jesus did not die on the cross as stated in the New Testament then our theological conclusions about the cross are false.
 
Many Muslims cite The Gospel of Barnabas in defense of their anti-cross teaching. For instance, Suzanne Haneef, in commenting on The Gospel of Barnabas says, “Within it one finds the living Jesus portrayed far more vividly and in character with the mission with which he was entrusted than any other of the four New Testament Gospels has been able to portray him” (What Everyone Should Know about Islam and Muslims. Chicago: Kazi Pub., 1979, page 186).
 
A key idea in The Gospel of Barnabas is that Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus. Muslims embrace this since they believe that someone else, other than Jesus died on the cross. But this view is outrageous. In the first place, The Gospel of Barnabas is totally discredited among credible scholars. Actually, some Muslim scholars confuse The Gospel of Barnabas with The Epistle of Barnabas. The late first century Epistle of Barnabas was even cited as Scripture by some Christians. The Gospel of Barnabas is a totally different document, written more than 1,000 years later.

To assume that Jesus did not die on a cross is tantamount to challenging the credibility of the New Testament. In order to remain focused I would simply say that to date, the New Testament is by far the most highly documented book from the ancient world. Furthermore, as an ancient document, the New Testament is the most accurately copied book in the world. Even if one were to ignore the teachings of the New Testament, there is enough non-biblical sources to confirm Jesus’ crucifixion.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote in his “Antiquities of the Jews”, “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross” (Josepheus: Complete Works. Kregal Publications, 1963, page 379).

 

Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote: “a wise man who was called Jesus…Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die” (Annals, 15:44). Similar quotations can cited from first century historian Thallus, second century Greek writer, Lucian and even the Jewish Talmud.

 
The Old Testament and numerous non-Christian sources confirm that Jesus died as described in the New Testament. In addition, the causes of His death have also been verified among historians. As recent as in March 1986, The Journal of the American Medical Association published an extensive article entitled, On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ (Volume 255. Number 11). In the closing paragraph, the authors concluded: “Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted…interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”
 
As we reflect on the death of Jesus this Easter, we should never lose sight of the fact that His death was not indicative of defeat. It was while on the cross Jesus shouted, “IT IS FINISHED” (John 19:30). Based on a Greek interpretation of the exclamation, Jesus was basically saying, “It has been finished and remains finished forever.” This statement was a declaration of triumph. The statement is also used to mean accomplished.
 
For Christians, the death of Jesus on the cross means no one else needs to die for the sins of the people. His mission was accomplished. Hence, our victory is based on the fact of His death and not on the wishful thinking of believers.