Christian lied about faith to survive Saudi siege

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia, May 31 (Reuters) - A Christian Arab who was held captive by al Qaeda militants in Saudi Arabia said on Monday he lied to them about his faith and praised their battle against the West, to save his life.

Nizar Hajazeen, a Jordanian software businessmen who was at the Tower hotel in the Oasis compound during the 25-hour drama in Khobar, said the militants lectured him about Islam and their aim to liberate Saudi Arabia from "infidels and crusaders".

The complex where the militants held about 50 foreigners -- including some Westerners -- was their last target in the violence in the eastern Saudi oil city in which they killed at least 22 people.

Hajazeen, 32, had tried to call a cab to go to work on Saturday but the phone lines were jumbled.

"I went down and the Filipino receptionist told me there were terrorists in the compound and gunshots were heard," he told Reuters.

He tried to help security guards close the hotel entrance gate but the lock did not work and a manager recommended he hide, Hajazeen said.

"I went to the room of a Jordanian colleague. Someone banged violently on the door. We opened and there were two men, one with a machinegun, another with a revolver. They were wearing black track suits," he said, adding that one had a wounded arm.

"One then asked if I was a Christian or a Muslim. I told him we were Muslims and showed him my colleague's Koran as proof. I told him we supported them and that we were against America and Europe. I had to say that."

Residents of the compound said the attackers asked everyone they encountered if they were Muslim or Christian, before taking them hostage or killing them.

An Oasis manager said the gunmen shot and killed several Westerners as soon as they entered the complex.

The gunmen made two Indian hotel staff with master keys show them where the Westerners were, Hajazeen said.

His brother called him on his mobile phone to wish him a happy birthday -- a day late -- just as the militants were saying their motive was to drive Americans and Christians from their country.

"They asked me to turn off my mobile but did not take it away as they did with others," Hajazeen said, adding that they told him and his colleague to stay in the room and left.

"We stayed locked in our room. One of us was hiding in the shower, another one was hiding in the bathtub," Hajazeen said, adding that from time to time they sneaked back into the bedroom to watch the news on television.

He said that before commandos freed them on Sunday, compound security guards called his mobile to ask him to check if the militants had rigged his floor with explosives. He found nothing.

"Before the commandos came, there was heavy gunfire and one explosion shook the hotel. We could hear glass being smashed, screams... It sounded like someone was giving out orders."

Making his way to freedom he saw the bodies of four Indians and an Italian cook.

Finally, in the 5th Century, St. Augustine defeated the bitter Donatists with this simple logic. Grace for every Christian comes from Christ Himself--not through the good character of the priest. So while priests of course should be godly men, even if a priest was not godly, or not repentent from denying Christ, and unsaved, their sacraments are valid, since the grace they provide is Christ' not the priests.

Thank you so much for the Church history lesson, in your entire post#81. I would agree with those that God alone will decide our fate, and that nothing we do or say here will determine that, with the exception of "denial of the Spirit" - but I'm certainly not clear on what God means by that, so I'll never make that call, but this story doesn't seem to even come close. I CAN however, and must, make judgements as to whether a person is acting grossly counter to the Word of God, and might possibly be called upon to exhort that person to examine their life - and this man clearly can't be called to task by me or any here.

This passage delineating Augustine's thought is clearly pertinent in many situations that the Church has found itself in through the years.

St.Augustine (and the other doctors of the church) were simply awesome.

That being said, my particular take on this situation is that this man denied himself the easy way into heaven should he have said, 'Yup, Jesus Christ is one of the three persons of the Trinity, I believe that, and will go to my grave testifying to that.' That he chose not to do so, for whatever reason (with my being the only shepard of my 7yo daughter now, I might choose similarly 'cause He may disagree with my selfish "easy way into heaven" motive otherwise) only means that he will have to slog the rest of his life out like the rest of us, with all the attendant opportunities for the Evil One to change our course. There have been times in my life it would be have been totally wrong for me to fail in such a profession, though. For this man's missed opportunity, I concur with those expressing sadness for the man, as well as also rejoicing in his life and faith. God knows his heart and circumstances.
.

I really think you're gonna need to explain this one.

Sure. From my point of view, there are three types of people as it relates to this argument:

Those who prefer or choose to live according to no spiritual law (antinomian or lawless)
Those who prefer, choose, or strive to live according to some version of a spiritual law system (e.g. 10 commandments, all commandments as enumerated in old and new testaments, all commandments as enumerated in new testament, all commandments as enumerated in old testament, subsets of both, etc.)
Those who prefer, choose, or strive to live as free from spiritual law systems and according to the law of love (e.g. Galatians 5)

Now, granted, many who would categorize themselves in some subset of category 2 above would think those in category 3 should actually be put in category 1. Many in category 1 might actually believe they are in category 3 when they really are in category 2. But, for my argument's sake I would like to limit to to 3 categories.

Category 1 is reserved for those who by and large do not care. Non-believers with no interest in anything spiritual.

Category 2 I reserve for most of Christendom. Those who believe that some or all of one of the testaments contain rules and laws by which we must adhere to in order to be saved. While many in this category may believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, they still believe that whether or not they retain the grace they have been given requires a continual striving to keep a law. They judge themselves and all others by the relative success attained in keeping that law.

Category 3 is reserved for those who understand Galatians 5:1 where Paul says "it is for freedom Christ has set us free." The fact that the gospel message has called them to not endure the yoke of slavery to a law system, but has called them to live a life according to the law of love. "How is love best served in this situation?" is the question this person asks. Again, it is not antinomianism or lawlessness: these folks still strongly believe the Psalmist when he says "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." Commandments such as "Do not lie" and "Do not murder" are never ever treated with anything but the utmost respect and would be crossed only in the most extreme situations. Nevertheless, they are not what these folks believe they will be judged according to. They believe they will answer to the law of love: "How is love best served in this situation?" Again, not puppy love, or sentimental love, or sexual love. Rather the "agape" love demonstrated by the cross: love that is in the object's best spiritual interests.

The classic example everyone uses is of course a hypothetical: "would you lie to the gestapo if they asked you if there were Jews hiding in your house?"

Most people would say "Yes, I would lie in that case." A few would say, "No, I would not."

For the few that would say "No, I would not lie in this situation" I would retort are the true unabashed legalists who believe their eternal destiny is indeed tied up in following the law quite literally to a fault. They are related to the priest in the parable of the good samaritan who passes by the samaritan left for dead. Or this person would simply tell the Jews that they had better hide somewhere else and not tell me because I don't want to go to hell lying for you. In fact, it might be argued that in following one law they are breaking another: love thy neighbor. The choice is so stark and so obvious to all that the loving thing to do is to lie in that situation that very few people have a problem with the lie.

However, even for those in category 2 who do admit that lying would be the loving thing to do they arrive at that decision differently than those in category 3. Typically, they arrive at the decision almost through an unwritten casuistry of generally accepted "exceptions to the rule." For most who are sincere believers, they arrive there in an exceptionally honorable fashion. They reason, correctly in my opinion, that because Jesus said the most important two commandments are to love God and love your neighbor, that these in some rare instances outweigh other commandments dealing with lying, stealing, etc.

Category 3 folks arrive a little less arduously. They are not concerned with anything other than "how is love best served in this situation?" No mental gymnastics and energy are spent on determining whether or not will God forgive me for lying, for once it becomes clear how love is best served then the best means to serve that end is employed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.