US Conservatives dispute Bush’s portrayal of Islam

Washington, December 8 PRESIDENT Bush finds himself in a rare disagreement with Conservatives in his party over his efforts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that is not responsible for anti-American terrorism. In a score of speeches since the September 11, 2001, attacks, Bush has called for tolerance of Muslims, describing Islam as ‘‘a faith based upon peace and love and compassion’’ and a religion committed to ‘‘morality and learning and tolerance.’’

But a large number of foreign policy hawks — some of them with advisory roles in the Bush administration — have joined religious conservatives in taking issue with Bush’s characterisations. While most of them understand the political rationale for Bush’s statements — there’s no benefit in antagonising Muslim allies such as Pakistan and Indonesia — they say the claim is dishonest and destined to fail. For Bush and for the country, the outcome of the argument is crucial.

The administration, and moderate governments in Arab and Muslim nations, are struggling to prevent the war on terrorism from becoming what Osama bin Laden wants: a war of civilisation between the Judeo-Christian West and a resentful and impoverished Muslim world. Calling Islam a peaceful religion ‘‘is an increasingly hard argument to make,’’ said Kenneth Adelman, a former Reagan official who serves on the Bush Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.

‘‘The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus.’’ Another member of the Pentagon advisory board, Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, wrote an article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page arguing that the enemy of the US is not terrorism ‘‘but militant Islam.’’ ‘‘The enemy has an ideology, and an hour spent surfing the Web will give the average citizen at least the kind of insights that he or she might have found during World Wars I and II by reading Mein Kampf or the writings of Lenin, Stalin or Mao.’’

Cohen acknowledges it is impolitic and ‘‘deeply uncomfortable’’ for the administration to say such things. ‘‘Nobody would like to think that a major world religion has a deeply aggressive and dangerous strain in it — a strain often excused or misrepresented in the name of good feelings. But uttering uncomfortable and unpleasant truths is one of the things that defines leadership,’’ he said.

At the same time, social conservatives are resisting Bush’s efforts to portray Islam in a favorable light. ‘‘Islam is at war against us,’’ Paul Weyrich, an activist who is influential in the White House, wrote recently.

‘‘I have had much good to say about President Bush in recent months. But one thing that concerned me before September 11 and concerns me even more now is his administration’s constant promotion of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is neither.’’ — LATWP

Yes, the Arabs are nations. Just as Scripture foretold. But only through Isaac are all nations blessed.

Genesis 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

And the prophecy for the Arabs is come true as well.

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

So what are we to say? Do Muslims or even Jews worship the same god that Christians worship, or not?

The answer may have as much to do with semantics as with theology, but semantics are important.

In essence, the religion of Islam began in 610 A.D. when a man named Mohammed became convinced that the polytheism practiced by the Arabian tribes was wrong, and that only one god should be worshiped. Mohammed believed the angel Gabriel revealed this to him, and preached the message widely, teaching his followers the "revelations" from Gabriel that were collected and preserved as the Qur'an.

"Allah" is a poetic form of the Arabic al illah, meaning "the god." Mohammed took an incipient belief in a supreme god and promoted Allah as the only god.

Mohammed and his followers identified Allah as the god of the Old Testament, consider Abraham to be their spiritual ancestor, and revere the biblical prophets.

Muslims also consider Jesus to be a miracle-working prophet who was born of a virgin. They consider it heresy, however, to claim that Jesus is the Son of God, and reject all notions of the Trinity.

Islamic arguments against Christianity typically assert that Christians worship three gods and thus show infidelity to the one god.

The core of Islamic faith is expressed in the shahadah, sometimes translated as "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Some English-speaking Muslims translate "There is no god but God."

Jews and Christians have more commonality in belief, and clearly refer to the same deity when we say "God." Christians believe, however, that God's self-revelation does not stop with the Old Testament but is fulfilled in the New Testament.

Whether one prefers to say that Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in different gods, as opposed to differing views of the same god, is largely a matter of semantics. From a Christian perspective, anyone who does not accept the full revelation of God through the saving work of Christ and the sustaining presence of the Holy Spirit has only a partial understanding of God.

Thus, Christians might argue that Muslims or Jews worship "a different god" because we believe their concept of God is incomplete. It is perhaps more appropriate, however, to think of Muslims and Jews as worshiping the same god, though not in His fullness.

Why does it matter? Our terminology can impact the effectiveness of our witness to any who do not accept Christ. It is essential that we keep channels of communication open by showing respect for people of other faiths, even if we believe their view of God is inadequate. Explaining Christ as the saving fulfillment and ultimate revelation of the same god is a natural and effective means of sharing our faith with Muslims and Jews. Insisting that they worship a different god altogether is bound to be counter-productive.

It is possible to be tactful in our speech without compromising our witness.

Source.

"But God said to Abraham: 'Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name. As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a great nation of him also, since he too is your offspring.'"

- Genesis 21:12-13

May I suggest that the operative word in the passage that you have cited is "also."

Here the LORD graciously promises to make of Ishmael "a" great nation (which promise, incidentally, has been overwhelmingly fulfilled in the Arab peoples literally, and in all Muslims, spiritually).

Nonetheless, the verse I cited (Gen 21:12) trumps yours: Abraham's seed via Isaac is the line of promise, whence sprang the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Himself.

Stick to your day job: A bible exegete you ain't.

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.

ARE JEWS THE ANTI-CHRIST OR NOT?