The apostasy of Pope Francis has accelerated both in frequency and severity since the beginning of his papacy. This has caused a great turmoil within the Catholic Church between conservative dissidents and liberal supporters of the Francis papacy. His words and actions have caused growing alarm among many Catholics, and resistance to the Pope’s liberalization of the church is widespread among strict conservatives in the powerful Catholic hierarchy. This riff is being described by many as a culture war within the Catholic Church. American born Cardinal Raymond Burke is a staunch conservative and veteran Vatican bureaucrat who was recently demoted by Pope Francis. Burke has continued to openly warn the Pope that papal power “is not absolute…The pope does not have the power to change teaching doctrine.” In spite of the vast powers of the Pope, Burke has said that church doctrine serves as a kind of constitution from which a Pope may not depart.[1]

The culture war within the Catholic Church is being fought between the Pope’s progressive allies who see him as a revolutionary who is upending church tradition. Conservatives say the Pope is subtly and implicitly backing liberal church leaders who are pushing for radical changes. The conservative view was confirmed when at a 2014 meeting of senior bishops the Pope appeared to give special latitude to the liberals pressing his progressive agenda. At this meeting he challenged those defending church orthodoxy by saying, “Let no one say, ‘This you cannot say.’ ” The Pope’s tacit support of the liberal’s progressive agenda continues to be evident due to his failure to silence Catholic priests and bishops that are speaking and doing things that contradict church teachings about same-sex unions and granting communion to those who are living in adultery. As one official said, “So the inference is that this is what the pope wants.” Conservative opponents of the Pope’s agenda say they are being unfairly labeled as enemies of the Pope because they are defending “the real teachings of the church.”[2]

The extent to which the current conservative Catholic criticism has become public is highly unusual. One example is Providence Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin’s open letter to the members of his diocese in which he said, “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.”[3] Bishop Tobin’s comments are very similar to the sentiments expressed by a growing number of American evangelical Protestants who are questioning the teachings and methods of church growth movement that stands in opposition to biblical Christianity and the long-held doctrines of the church.

For most of his papacy, the Pope’s support of the progressive agenda has been largely a behind-the-scenes effort. However, in recent times the Pope has taken the lead in utterly transforming the Catholic Church. Two recent initiatives reflect his desire to fundamentally change the face of the Catholic church and its doctrines. The first will be dealt with in this article and the second in Part IV of this series on the great apostasy in the last days.

Islam

In an address to Catholic followers on February 21, 2016, Pope Francis made the following statements:

Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. [emphasis added]

This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each other’s beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.[4]

There can be no mistake about the meaning and intent of Pope Francis’ words. He has said that Jesus, Jehovah, and Allah are the same and that the Qur’an and its teachings are just as valid as the Bible. But the entities of Jesus and Allah are not distinctly the same across the world. To claim Jesus and Allah are the same is equivalent to saying that Adolph Hitler and Winston Churchill were distinctly the same entities because they were leaders during World War II. But the beliefs and actions of Churchill and Hitler and the people they represented were vastly different and formed no basis for unity through a merger of beliefs. And the differences between Jesus of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an are infinitely greater.

Trinitarian God v. Unipersonal Allah

The God of the Bible is one being and three in person. A being and a person are not the same. A being is a characteristic or quality that makes it what it is. The who has to do with the person. God’s characteristic (the what) is that he is the supreme God. The personhood of God (the who) can be found in His three persons or personalities. Notice that “persons” (plural) allow for relationships to exist. This is critical for man to understand himself, God, and their relationship. The Qur’an denies the Trinity (Surah 5:74, 172). Even in Muhammad’s denial, he was mistaken in what he believed comprised the Christian Trinity. Muhammad believed the Christian Trinity was God, Jesus, and Mary as opposed to the Bible’s teaching that the Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Composite oneness v. Absolute Oneness

In Christianity, the central theme of the entire Bible focuses on relationship and confirms the importance of His Trinitarian nature. Expressed another way, it is a composite oneness, one heart beating within three persons. The Trinitarian relationship is about love and relationship which implies a dynamic movement or flowing of self-giving love between the three persons within God in which each exalts, communes with, and defers to the others.[5] These actions create and define loving relationships.

The Qur’an in Surah 112 commands, “Say: He is Allah, the One, the Only; The Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” The verses weld together two fundamental doctrines of Islam: (1) Allah is an absolute, undifferentiated unity and (2) “in his unity, Allah is utterly independent of anything. He is self-subsisting and self-sufficient.”

Allah’s aloofness and independence makes it impossible for man to relate to him and impossible for the human heart and mind to understand anything about him apart from the superficial. Although Allah is personal in that he is described as a conscious being with a will, his personality is hidden and cannot be known to any meaningful degree by mankind. Therefore, it is not possible for his followers to have a personal, loving relationship with him.[6]

Because of this description of Allah as a self-subsisting and self-sufficient entity absolutely independent of anything, it is impossible for Allah to express or give love. His nature will not allow such. Therefore, Allah is unipersonal and his ultra-unified, self-contained, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and self-centered being removes any hope of love flowing from his nature in spite of Mohammad’s claims in the Qur’an.

God’s love v. Allah’s love

God’s nature is love, and He commanded His followers to unconditionally reflect His love to others in this world. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” [Luke 6:35-36, RSV]

Contrast the love of the God of the Bible with Allah’s love as described in the Qur’an.[7] Allah of the Qur’an does not love his enemies nor does he love the unlovable, and the Qur’an is very specific in its directives as to the harsh and violent treatment of infidels, the disobedient, and evil-doers. The Qur’an specifically states in numerous verses that Allah’s love is restricted to those that deserve it, a concept that mirrors the very human reaction to love only those who love us.[8] Listed below are just three examples of this dichotomy found in the Qur’an.

Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [Surah 2:276. Qur’an]

Say: “obey Allah and His Apostle”: but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. [Surah 3:32. Qur’an]

As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong. [Surah 3:57. Qur’an]

______

The Qur’an states that Jesus is not the begotten Son of God but a prophet; Jesus did not die on the cross for man’s sin; and that the Muslim’s road to heaven is found in works and obedience to the Qur’an and Sharia law. It is a religion whose God is distant and impersonal. One must ask what kind of Islamic heaven it will be in the absence of an impersonal Allah.

Even our cursory examination of the differences between the natures and love of God and Allah reveal stark and irreconcilable differences between the two religions and prohibit a “merging of faiths” and cannot unite us as “people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith.” That is because Islam is a false religion whose unrepentant followers will end in hell. There is only one way to heaven, and the words of Jesus point to that direction, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6. KJV] The Bishop of Rome has plainly identified God as being the same for both Islam and Christianity, and he has equated the lies of the Qur’an with the truth of the Bible. These are heresies of the highest magnitude.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Anthony Faiola, “Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican,” Washington Post, September 7, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-conservative-revolt-is-brewing-inside-the-vatican/2015/09/07/1d8e02ba-4b3d-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html (accessed September 5, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mellisa Ferrari, “Pope Francis to followers: The Bible and the Koran are the same,” USA Politics Today, February 23, 2016. http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/pope-francis-to-followers-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/ (accessed September 6, 2016).
[5] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (New York: Dutton, 2008), pp. 214-215.
[6] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), pp. 159-161.
[7] All quotations from the Qur’an are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[8] Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, pp. 231-232.

As described in Part I, the Yale Covenant was a response to an open letter signed by 130 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world to leaders of Christian churches everywhere. The Muslim scholars pointed to common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. The Yale Covenant was a response to the Muslim letter signed by over three hundred prominent Christian ministers, professors, and leaders from various organizations including Christian churches, ministries, seminaries, Christian publishers, and various quasi-Christian organizations. Most of the signers could be classified as coming from the liberal segment of those entities. However, there were several high-profile and highly influential representatives from major evangelical churches and organizations that signed the Yale Covenant but who are not typically thought of as being associated with liberal doctrines and causes. Those included:

Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals

David Yonggi Cho, Founder and Senior Pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea

Bill Hybels, Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and Founder of Willow Creek Association

Dr. Robert Schuller, Founder of Crystal Cathedral and Hour of Power television ministry

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, and author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life.[1]

When these men affixed their names to the Yale Covenant, they effectively associated themselves with a false religion in direct violation of the Apostle Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians.

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God…[2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. RSV] [emphasis added]

Matthew Henry’s 300 year old commentary gives additional insight into the Apostle Paul’s words of cautioned to the Corinthians.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane. There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers. We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion can these have together?[2]

These men and others in evangelicalism that embrace and promote anti-biblical efforts such as the Yale Covenant bring great reproach and damage to the cause of Christ through their efforts. They cannot separate their pronouncements, actions, and example from those of others in the church (evangelical or liberal) such as the Reverend Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Pastor Campbell permitted the Episcopal Church to host a Muslim prayer service at the Cathedral on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was conducted at the Cathedral by Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim and the South African ambassador to the U.S., in cooperation with various Muslim societies and organizations and The Nation’s Mosque. Widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham prompted Reverend Campbell to vigorously defend her decision. She stated that the National Cathedral was a

…place of prayer for all people. Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God…We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us.[3] [emphasis added]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God as has been unequivocally demonstrated in Parts I through III of this series. Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building in which His people “…who are called by my name…” worship the God of the Bible [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Third, as Matthew Henry wrote, religious communion between the light and darkness is a great absurdity, not bridge building as Reverend Campbell would have us believe.

In his outreach efforts to the Muslim faith, Rick Warren did much more than just sign his name to the Yale Covenant in 2007. In 2006 Warren and his wife received an invitation to visit and share an Ifar meal from the leader of the Mission Viejo mosque near Saddleback Church. Iftar is the evening meal Muslims eat after fasting all day during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Following several such visits, Warren began accepting invitations to address Muslim conferences in Long Beach, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.[4]

On July 4, 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capitol during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

I will tell you that I am not interested in interfaith dialogue. I am interested in interfaith projects. There is a big difference. Talk is very cheap. You can talk and talk and talk and never get anything done. Love is something you do. It is something we do together…You know what I discovered is when you walk down the middle of the road you get hit coming and going…Actually, it is easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you. But if you actually try to build relationships, like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering, you’ll get criticized for it, so will I. But that is not what matters.[5]

Although Warren strongly asserts that he has maintained his religious differences with Islam, he says that Muslims and Christians can work together for “the common good.” He encouraged the Muslim audience to not compromise their convictions.[6]

In 2011 Warren invited Muslims to share Christmas dinner with the members of his church. At the dinner Warren and the leader of a Los Angeles mosque introduced King’s Way as “a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.” The document co-authored by Warren and the Muslim leader outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam that centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The document stated that Muslims and Christians believed in “one God” and that the religions shared two fundamental commandments: “love of God” and “love of neighbor” and quoted side-by-side verses from the Bible and the Koran to support their claims. The “King’s Way” document committed both faiths to: “Making friends with one another, building peace and working on shared social service projects.” Echoing Warren’a statements, the mosque’s leader stated that, “We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other. We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”[7]

The Orange County Register reporting on the event stated that, according to polls by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “evangelicals are 30 percent more likely than other Christians to hold a negative view of Islam…[and] that evangelicals overwhelmingly favor converting Muslims to Christianity and are more likely to believe that Islam encourages violence.” The newspaper also stated that Warren “has repeatedly encouraged evangelicals to set aside such views, arguing that Christians are obliged to treat everyone with love and respect, regardless of faith.”[8] Christians should treat individual Muslims with love and respect, but one must ask where in the Bible does it give Warren the authority to tell Muslims to not compromise their convictions and to suspend efforts at conversion for “the common good”?

How does Warren’s words and actions align with the Apostle Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians: “…what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” Henry’s commentary on this verse is abundantly clear when he states that “It is wrong for good people to join in affinity with the wicked and profane.” Although Warren claims that he is working for “the common good,” Henry states that “There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad…We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them.”

The words and actions of Campbell and Warren are clearly contrary both to the letter and the spirit of Paul’s instructions to Christians. This is theological apostasy described in Part I in which deceitful leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. They and others in the evangelical church who follow their examples bring great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weaken the authority of the Bible, and give legitimacy to a false and violent religion.
______

In Matthew 24, after Jesus and His disciples left the temple, they went to the Mount of Olives where the disciples asked questions with regard to the sign of His coming and the end of the world. In verses 4 through 14, Jesus gave them general signs of events leading up to rapture which occurs just before the end the last days which culminate with the seven-year tribulation period. The signs that Jesus gave in these verses characterize the events preceding the rapture, and these events will intensify as that time approaches. One of those signs was the increase of false prophets and religious compromisers within the visible church. They will deceive many as religious deception becomes rampant throughout the planet (v.4-5, 11). Other events of our present day mirror those spoken of by Christ and unmistakably signal the nearness of the rapture: the increasing prevalence of war and threats of war, famine, pestilences, and natural disasters (vv. 6-7); the increase and severity of hatred for and persecution of God’s people (v. 9) resulting in large numbers that will forsake their loyalty to Christ (v.10); and the rapid increase in immorality, violence, and crime while natural love and family affection decrease (v. 12).[9]

In Matthew 24:11 Christ states, “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Given that we are primarily addressing theological apostasy, the extensive Commentary and Study Notes of Donald Stamps written for the Full Life Study Bible and published over twenty-five years ago give great clarity as it paints a prescient picture of the condition of today’s contemporary American evangelical church.

As the last days [before the rapture] begin to close, false teachers and preachers will be exceedingly prevalent. Much of Christendom will be in an apostate condition. Loyalty and total commitment to the truth of God’s Word and Biblical righteousness will be in the minority. [emphasis added]

(1) Professing believers will accept “new revelation” even though it conflicts with the revealed Word of God. This will lead to opposition to Biblical truth within the churches. Those who preach a distorted gospel may even gain strategic leadership positions in denominations and theological schools of Christendom, enabling them to deceive and mislead many within the church.

(2) Throughout the world millions will be in the occult, astrology, witchcraft, Spiritism, and Satanism. The influence of demons and evil spirits will multiply greatly.

(3) Protection against being deceived is found in an enduring faith and love for Christ, in a commitment to the absolute authority of His Word and a thorough knowledge of that Word.[10] [emphasis added]

______

The Yale Covenant is just one example of apostasy in the church. One might argue that the number of evangelicals among its three hundred signers was relatively insignificant and does not reflect the true condition of the evangelical church. But the magnitude and extent of the influence of these men and others of like minds are extremely significant in the evangelical world, and their words and actions in this and other matters have contributed greatly to the rapid increase and spread of a general apostasy in these last days.

Leith Anderson is President of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents more than 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.[11]

David Yonggi Cho was the Founder and Senior Pastor [now Emeritus pastor] of Yoido Full Gospel Church (Assemblies of God), Seoul, South Korea, the world’s biggest congregation[12] estimated by several sources as being in excess of eight hundred thousand.

Bill Hybels founded Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois, and has been the senior pastor of the multi-campus mega church for over forty years. Since 1992, Hybels also had indoctrinated twelve thousand churches and their leaders with his message, methods, and practices through their membership in the Willow Creek Association, also founded by and led by Hybels.[13]

Dr. Robert Schuller founded what eventually became the Crystal Cathedral, a California mega church that for many years had a world-wide television audience through Schuller’s Hour of Power television ministry. Schuller died in 2015.

Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, is often called America’s pastor. The mega church pastor’s reach extends far beyond his own congregation through his Purpose Driven empire which includes his multi-million bestselling books (The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life). The Purpose Driven Church is listed in “100 Christian Books That Changed the 20th Century.” Warren’s Purpose Driven Network of churches is a global coalition of congregations in 162 countries that have trained more than 400,000 ministers and priests worldwide. Additionally, almost 157,000 church leaders subscribe to the Ministry’s ToolBox, Warren’s weekly newsletter.[14]

These five men have had an incredibly powerful influence on evangelicalism not only in America but around the world. Yet, these men have through their words and actions boldly aligned themselves with doctrines of darkness in direct contradiction to the Bible’s commands. For Schuller, Hybels, and Warren, their departures from sound doctrine and practice of New Testament Christianity are not new and not limited to the Yale Covenant. In spite of the power, influence, popularity, and strategic leadership positions of these men, Bible-believing Christians must adhere to Christ’s warning to His disciples found in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture,
http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[3] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[4] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register, August 21, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html (accessed December 5, 2014).
[5] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 53-54.
[10] Ibid., p. 54.
[11] “About NAE,” National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/about-nae/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[12] “World’s Biggest Congregation,” PBS – Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, August 10, 2012.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/08/10/august-10-2012-worlds-biggest-congregation/10162/ (accessed May 2, 2016).
[13] Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Reveal – Where Are You? (Barrington, Illinois: Willow Creek Association, 2007), pp. 3-4, 111.
[14] “About Rick Warren,” Pastor Rick’s Daily Hope, http://rickwarren.org/about/rick-warren (accessed May 2, 2016).

The second area that must be examined to determine if there is hope for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity is love. If there are fundamental differences in the concepts and practices of love between Islam and Christianity, then love cannot provide a common ground.

Are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same?

As they did in addressing questions presented in Part II, the Yale Covenant authors point to the difficulties in identifying the similarities between the Islamic and Christian understandings of love. These difficulties include several issues. A major difference noted was whether God’s love was conditional or non-conditional. The Bible says that God’s love is unconditional whereas in the Quran it appears that Allah’s love is conditional. Another concern raised by the covenant authors was the difficulty of translating the meaning of words between Arabic and other languages which leads to difficulty in comparing the conceptions of love in the two religions. Other areas identified for further study and discussion were the meanings of the names for God with respect to love and whether God’s love is self-giving. The authors provide no answers to these questions but once again stress the need “for conversations and interactions on these crucial matters of love of God and of neighbor.[1]

Here again the covenant authors get caught up in details (important though they may be) but step away from the fundamental question as to the natures of the two Gods revealed by the Bible and the Quran. However, answers will not come from mere discussions about God’s titles, translations, interpretations, and definitions of love. Answers can be found only in an examination of the fundamental natures of the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran in relation to love and its application between God and man and man to man. Put another way, are the understandings and practices of love expressed by the nature of God described in the Bible and the Quran essentially the same or radically different?

The Christian’s God is love, not just a loving God (John 4:8). God’s love is unconditional which is revealed throughout the great meta-narrative of the creation, the Fall, and redemption. For the Christian, we must again return to the Trinity. In the Christian worldview, God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. It was a sacrificial love because rebellious man did not deserve it. But man’s rebellion was not a surprise to God for He knew the cost of His supreme love before he created man (see Revelation 13:8). No man was worthy or deserving of God’s love or capable of doing anything to gain His love. Therefore, God sent His incarnate Son to die on a Roman cross that made possible the redemption of mankind. God willingly gave his begotten Son’s life so that all of mankind through their individual freewill would have the opportunity to accept the gift of forgiveness and redemption.

God’s nature is love, and He commanded His followers to unconditionally reflect His love to others in this world. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” [Luke 6:35-36, RSV]

Contrast the love of the Christian’s God with Allah’s love as described in the Quran. The Quran states that God is Al-Wadud meaning that he is full of loving kindness. This loving kindness is well-demonstrated by many Muslims in the loving way they treat their children and in the great hospitality and kindness bestowed on those that visit their homes. But Allah’s loving kindness is limited to only a part of mankind. Islam does not love its enemies nor does it love the unlovable, and the Quran is very specific in its directives as to the harsh and violent treatment of infidels, the disobedient, and evil-doers. The Quran[2] specifically states in numerous verses that Allah’s love is restricted to those that deserve it, a concept that mirrors the very human reaction to love only those who love us.[3] Listed below are just three examples.

Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [Sura 2:276. Quran]

Say: “obey Allah and His Apostle”: but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. [Sura 3:32. Quran]

As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong. [Sura 3:57. Quran]

A personal or an impersonal God?

As important is our understanding the different natures of God and Allah with regard to love, we must take one step beyond to determine the reasons for the differences and why those reasons matter to mankind.

In Islam, it is not possible to separate or differentiate Allah’s mind, will, and actions. He is described as absolute oneness in his nature and personhood. The distinguishing characteristic of Islam is the unity of Allah.[4] One of the most revered chapters in the Quran is Sura 112 which commands, “Say: He is Allah, the One, the Only; The Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”

When Mohammad was asked to describe Allah, Sura 112 was supposedly given to him by Allah. Islamic tradition states that Mohammad considered Sura 112 as worth one-third of the entire Quran. The verses weld together two fundamental doctrines of Islam: (1) Allah is an absolute, undifferentiated unity and (2) “in his unity, is utterly independent of anything. He is self-subsisting and self-sufficient.” But this conception of Allah’s greatness makes it impossible for man to relate to him and impossible for the human heart and mind to understand anything about him apart from the superficial. Allah is personal in that he is described as a conscious being with a will, but his personality is hidden and cannot be known to any meaningful degree by mankind. Therefore, it is not possible for his followers to have a personal, loving relationship with him.[5]

Because of this description of Allah as a self-subsisting and self-sufficient entity absolutely independent of anything, it is impossible for Allah to express or give love because his nature will not allow such. Therefore, Allah is unipersonal and his ultra-unified, self-contained, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and self-centered being removes any hope of love flowing from his nature in spite of Mohammad’s claims in the Quran. Given Allah’s self-described nature in the Quran as an absolute oneness and independence from anything, to say that Allah loves or does not love is an oxymoron at best or a false claim shrouded in an incomprehensible, unexplainable enigma that demands blind faith from his followers.

In Christianity, the central theme of the entire Bible focuses on relationship and confirms the importance of His Trinitarian nature. Perichoresis is a word used to describe the triune relationship between the members of the Godhead. It explains the close inter-relatedness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of which is clearly distinct but at the same time “…one in their own eternal and intense love for each other.”[6] Expressed another way, it is one heart beating within three persons.

Perichoresis shares its etymological roots with the word “choreography.”[7] With this in mind, Timothy Keller, in his book The Reason for God, wonderfully adds to our understanding of this relationship which he calls the Dance of God. The dance is about love and relationship which implies constant movement or flowing in which a “…self-giving love is the dynamic currency of the Trinitarian life of God. Three persons within God exalt, commune with, and defer to one another…a dynamic pulsating activity, a life, a kind of drama…a kind of dance…”[8]

And God has allowed man to share in this Trinitarian relationship. How can we know this? John’s gospel gives us the answer in Christ’s own words: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one.” [John 17: 22-23a. RSV] Historian George Marsden summarized Jonathan Edwards’s explanation of this passage. “The ultimate reason that God creates, said Edwards, is not to remedy some lack in God, but to extend that perfect internal communication of the triune God’s goodness and love…” Keller refines Edward’s statement when he said, “God did not create us to get the cosmic, infinite joy of mutual love and glorification, but to share it. [9] [emphasis added]

Is there common ground between Islam and Christianity with regard to love and relationship between man and God and man to man? When we examine the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, the answer is an indisputably no. In the areas of love and relationships, the differences between the unipersonal Allah of the Quran and the loving, personal God of the Bible are enormous and provide no basis for common ground between Islam and Christianity.

In the first three parts of this series we have discussed the end time apostasy that is engulfing many in the evangelical church, the Yale Covenant, and two areas identified as supposedly providing a basis for finding common ground between Islam and Christianity. In Part IV we shall examine how this modern apostasy of attempting to find common ground between Islam and Christianity has been embraced and promoted by some leaders in the evangelical church.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[3] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), pp. 231-232.
[4] Ibid., p. 159.
[5] Ibid., pp. 159-161.
[6] Glenn T. Stanton and Leon C. Wirth, The Family Project, (Coral Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2014), pp. 82-83.
[7] Ibid., p. 82.
[8] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (New York: Dutton, 2008), pp. 214-215.
[9] Ibid., pp. 218-219.

The Muslim scholars in their 2007 open letter to the Christian world (“A Common Word between Us and You”) and the response (the Yale Covenant) signed by three hundred Christian leaders identified two areas that were supposed to be common ground between Muslims and Christians: the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbor.[1] However, the truth or falsity of this claimed common ground can only be determined after a thoughtful examination of the nature of the Islam’s Allah and the Christian God of the Bible and their respective teachings and commandments with regard to love.

In other words, the evidence of any common ground between the two religions must ultimately be found in the natures of the respective Gods. If there are essential similarities in the most important aspects of the natures of Allah of the Quran and the God of the Bible, it would appear that there may be areas of common ground in the religions of Islam and Christianity. Likewise, if their natures are radically different, no common ground can exist.

Muslims claim that what can be known of Allah is found in the Quran written by Mohammad in the seventh century. Christians claim that God revealed himself through the divinely inspired writings of a number of men in both the Old and New Testaments recorded over a 1600-year period. Christians also claim that God can be known through His creation and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men and women. However, the written record of the Quran and the Bible will serve as our basis for determining the existence of common ground.

In examining the nature of God and the meaning and application of love as expressed by these natures, two questions must be answered in the affirmative if we are to determine there is common ground between Islam and Christianity. First, do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Second, are the Islamic and Christian understandings of love the same? The second question will be addressed in Part III.

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Many claim that Islam’s Allah and the Christian God are really the same God. As one well-known television talk show hostess infamously claimed, all roads lead to the same God. In addressing this question, the Yale Center for Faith and Culture responded to a number of questions and criticisms following the publication of the Yale Covenant. Their response to the question as to whether Allah and the Christian God are the same was presented in two parts.

First, the authors of the Yale Covenant assert that the God of the Bible may also be called “Allah” because it is merely the Arabic word for God. The second part of the response addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The signers of the Yale Covenant identify what they believe to be many similarities in the two religions’ views about God. Each claims to worship the one true God, that he is the creator of the heavens and the universe, is merciful and compassionate, rules the universe, and guides the affairs of mankind. They both believe that their God will judge all people at the end of history, that God sent prophets into the world to guide God’s people, and that both the Quran and the Bible were written by men who were divinely inspired. But the Yale Covenanters also acknowledge the two Gods are unlike with regard to the Trinity and the “Person of Jesus Christ whom Christians see as God’s ultimate self-revelation.”[2]

Ultimately, the Yale Covenant’s responders do not answer the question as to whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, they claim that in spite of important differences, those differences are “similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and few Christians today would assert that Jews are worshipping a different god or an idol.”[3] But to compare the differences between Islam and Christianity as being similar to the differences between Judaism and Christianity is ludicrous. Christians almost universally do not view the Old Testament as hostile to the teachings of the New Testament which is a record of the completion of story of God’s plan for mankind following the creation and the Fall found in the Old Testament. The Bible and the Quran could never be bound together as one book because they describe two completely different Gods and two different blueprints for mankind on this earth and in eternity.

The God of the Quran and the God of the Bible are superficially similar in certain ways but vastly different in the most fundamental and important aspects of their natures. Perhaps the most important differences are determined by an understanding of the very essence of who they say they are. The Bible reveals God in His Trinitarian form in the first chapter of Genesis, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” [Genesis 1:26. KJV] [emphasis added] Where verse 26 establishes the plurality of the Deity, verse 27 reinforces the unity of His divine essence. God is three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) but one divine being having a single divine nature. The Trinitarian nature of God will be discussed in greater detail in Part III.

Islam denies that God (Allah) is Triune but an “absolute unity, utterly without differentiation within himself” as such differentiation would diminish his greatness. In Islam, to suggest there is differentiation is to commit the greatest possible blasphemy.[4] “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.”[5] [Sura 5:76, Quran]

Islam also denies that God became incarnate because Allah would never stoop to the level of his creation by becoming human.[6] Islam teaches that those who claim that God became incarnate are blasphemers. “They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ: ‘O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins other gods with Allah,—Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.” [Sura 5:75] But the gospel of John states that, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6. KJV] In Islam, Jesus is not God but a prophet.

These verses from the Quran and the Bible have unquestionably presented a starkly different image of the true natures of the two Gods. If they have such vastly different natures, there can be no common ground of any significance between Islam and Christianity. One must be the ultimate Supreme Being that transcends all of creation and the other a false God, and the religion of the false God leads to pain and despair in this life and eternal damnation thereafter.

Yet, the Yale Covenanters state that, “We believe that Muslims and Christians share enough in their perspectives about God to serve as the foundation for a meaningful and constructive dialogue between them.” Apparently, the responders are not concerned with objective and eternal truth but merely “perspectives” that will lead to dialogue because “…we share enough common understanding of the true God to sit down at the table and discuss both our areas of agreement and disagreement in regard to God.”[7]

But we must look to the pithy writings of A. W. Tozer for wisdom and clarity regarding the motives and mindset of the defenders of the Yale Covenant. “When men believe God they speak boldly. When they doubt they confer. Much religious talk is but uncertainty rationalizing itself; and this they call “engaging in contemporary dialogue.”[8] [emphasis added]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), p. 166.
[5] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[6] Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, pp. 166-167.
[7] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture.
[8] A. W. Tozer, Man – The Dwelling Place of God, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers, 1966, 1997), p. 126.

The Apostle Paul’s second letter to Timothy speaks of the last days.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. [2 Timothy 3:1-5. KJV]

Before we discuss the growing apostasy of the church, we must place it in context with the end times. The last days spoken of by Paul include the entire Christian era that began with Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and the establishment of the Church. But at the end of the those last days (the church age) things will become ever-increasingly worse in the world including a rapid disintegration of moral standards and a great increase in false believers and churches within God’s kingdom.[1]

In the last days great numbers of the professing church will depart from biblical truth in both word and deed. This departure is called apostasy and means to “fall away” or abandonment and rebellion. Within the church, the apostasy will take two forms. The first is theological apostasy in which false leaders will depart from and reject part or all of the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. Under these false leaders and teachers, a false salvation and cheap grace will replace salvation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice at Calvary, repentance, turning from sin, and adherence to God’s standards of living. The false leaders and teachers will offer a gospel centered on the self and its needs and desires. The second type is moral apostasy in which one severs his relationship with Christ and embraces sin and immorality. Although proclaiming right doctrine and New Testament Christianity’s teachings, they will abandon the moral standards as taught by the New Testament in exchange for money, success, honor, and a large following.[2]

When this general apostasy (often called the Great Apostasy) will occur is described by Paul in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…[2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. KJV]

In his first letter, Paul had assured the Thessalonians that the true follower of Christ would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and be delivered from the coming wrath of God that was to fall upon the earth. Christians call this the rapture which also signals the beginning of the seven years of tribulation in which God’s wrath will be poured out upon the world. Paul’s continued assurances in the second letter were necessary because certain false teachers claimed that God had already begun to pour out His final wrath on the earth. Paul explained that before God’s final wrath would be loosed, two things must occur: there must be a specific falling away and the “man of sin” will be revealed. These two events signal that day when God’s wrath will be loosed. But we must remember that there is a sequence of events leading up to this time. During the entire church age, iniquity has been at work, but as the last days of the age draw to a close, evil becomes progressively worse. As the flood tide of evil swells as the end of the age nears, apostasy within the church will grow to startling proportions. Following the rapture of the true church, the Holy Spirit will no longer restrain the man of lawlessness (the Antichrist) who will then be revealed. Following the rapture of the true church, the remaining apostate church enters into a total rebellion against God and His Word.[3]

Evidence of a generalized apostasy within the church

Between 1870 and 1930 there was a great surge of apostasy within the church. Most of it was centered on the liberal church that eventually dominated the American church. Fundamentalists of the era who stayed true to New Testament Christianity were demeaned and marginalized. They had largely abandoned the culture until the mid to late 1940s when some fundamentalists emerged. Those fundamentalists became known as neo-evangelicals who once again engaged the culture while remaining true to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. But as America progressed through the remainder of the century and into the twenty-first century, a large portion of the evangelical church had succumbed to spirit of the age and slid into apostasy.

The apostasy that was embraced by the liberal church in the early part of the twentieth century has now entered much of the evangelical church in the last half of the twentieth century and first two decades of the twenty-first century. The extent to which this escalating apostasy has grown is evident in many quarters of the evangelical church and is symbolized by a recent occurrence of significant importance.

The Yale Covenant

On October 7, 2007, 138 Muslim scholars from throughout the Muslim world, representing every major school of the Islamic faith, sent an open letter “to leaders of Christian churches, everywhere.” The Muslim scholars pointed to the common ground between Muslims and Christians with regards to the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbors. With reconciliation as their goal, the Muslim scholars proposed that these common grounds would serve as the basis for a dialogue between the two religious faiths. This invitation was titled “A Common Word between Us and You.” In response to the Muslim “Common Word,” the Reconciliation Program at Yale University and several members of the Yale Divinity School community responded on November 13, 2007 with a full-page advertisement in the New York Times. Titled “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’,” the Yale response was signed by 130 Christian leaders and scholars and subsequently by an additional 180 prominent signatories.[4] This response has become known as the Yale Covenant.

The Yale response to the Muslim’s “A Common Word” contained a preamble, statements about world peace and religious peace, common ground, love of God, love of neighbor, and “The Task Before Us.” The document begins by asking Muslims to forgive Christians for their guilt in sinning against “our Muslim neighbors” in the past (the Crusades) and in the present (e.g., excesses of the “war on terror”).[5]

There are two essential questions that must be answered to determine the legitimacy of the Christian response to “A Common Word.” First, is Allah the same God that Christians worship? Second, is the Christian concept of love the same as that of Islam? If the answers to one or both of these questions is no, then it is apparent that no common ground exists and that those Christians who promote such commonality have departed from biblical truth and have become apostate.

In Parts II and III we shall examine the so-called common ground between Islam and Christianity as identified by the Muslim scholars and signers of the Yale Covenant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 500.
[2] Ibid., p. 478.
[3] Ibid., pp. 474-475.
[4] “A ‘Common Word’ at Yale: Frequently Asked Questions,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-yale-frequently-asked-questions (accessed April 27, 2016).
[5] “‘A Common Word’ Christian Response,” Yale Center for Faith and Culture, http://faith.yale.edu/common-word/common-word-christian-response (accessed April 27, 2016).

Modern trashing of the Crusades, Christianity, and Western civilization

We began Part I with President Obama’s description of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) as a distorted and deviant form of Islam. But he immediately suggests a moral equivalency of Christianity with ISIL, slavery in America, and past racism in the South.[1] But the President’s denigration of Christianity and the Crusades are not a new phenomenon.

The historical explanations of how and why the first Crusade began have been perverted by historians, academia, liberal politicians, and others hostile to Christianity for three hundred years. Their new interpretation is much more sinister and contemptuous. This cynical view of the Crusades has been widely disseminated by the progressive education movement in America which wrested education from the influence of the church in the late 1800s. The progressive educational establishment is a bitter enemy of the biblical worldview and much of Western civilization in general. The tenets of progressive education stem from the Enlightenment and its humanistic influence. Therefore, the Crusades have become a convenient tit-for-tat when defending Islam and denigrating Christianity through claims of moral equivalency.

Typical of the charges against the Crusades are that they are the cause of modern Muslim bitterness and Islamic fury at their mistreatment by the Christian Crusaders. The Crusaders were motivated by lands, spoils, and power, not piety and safety of Christian pilgrims going to the Holy Land. Crusaders were barbarians that attacked, brutalized, and destroyed “the enlightened Muslim culture.” Even the New York Times compared the Crusades to Hitler’s atrocities. Others charge that the Crusades were “…an expression of Catholic bigotry and cruelty.” These recurrent themes flow from the halls of academia, media, liberal politicians, and an assortment of humanist intellectuals, and their stanzas have been condensed to a single chorus by Rodney Stark, “…during the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam.”[2]

Although time does not allow a point by point refutation of the charges against Christianity and the Crusades, the remainder of this article summarizes and overwhelmingly exposes the absurd claims of the cultural and moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam.

Comparison of the tenets of Christian and Islamic Faiths

When one compares the tenets of Islam with those of Christianity, the two religions are worlds apart in their treatment of humanity. Islam is a militant theocracy with a stated purpose of subduing the entire world under an Islamic caliphate. But Christians obedient to the Bible cannot compel conversion nor punish those who do not convert as do the faithful followers of Islam. Numerous verses in the Quran speak of the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims. Perhaps the most telling difference between the tenets of Christianity and Islam is their respective records of persecution. Forty-one of the top fifty countries with the worst records for persecution are headed by Muslim governments substantially ruled or heavily influenced by Islamic theocracies. When one compares the tenets and the resultant actions of the faithful followers of the Qur’an compared to the faithful followers of Christ and the Bible, the superiority of the Christian faith is irrefutable.

Geographical extent, duration, and severity of Muslim aggression as compared to the Crusades

Disregarding motive and morality, there is a remarkable disparity in time, extent, and severity of conquest and brutality when comparing Muslim and Crusader aggression. In Part III it was noted that the twelve centuries of consistent and concerted Muslim aggression over three continents far outweighs the sporadic Crusades that occurred over two centuries and confined to a relatively small area. The historical record reveals that Muslim aggression lasted a millennium longer than the Crusades. Widespread accounts from various lands invaded and conquered reveal a consistent pattern of Muslim conquest and brutality that was far more frequent and harsh than the misdeeds of various Crusaders during the five campaigns to free and protect the Holy Land.

Motives and morality of Christians and Muslims

As stated in Part III, we must first clarify that good motives do not in themselves excuse immoral actions, but an examination of motives (good and bad) can determine if moral equivalency exists between Christianity and Islam. Stated simply, the motives of Muslims faithful to the Quran are to ultimately subdue the entire world under an Islamic caliphate. But in accordance with Christ’s command, the principle motive of Christians is to share their relationship with God as they interact with humanity. Perhaps the best description of a Christian’s motivation is described in that well-known verse found in John’s gospel, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16. RSV] This message is based on freedom to choose Christianity as opposed to Muslim coercion to convert. From the perspective of morality and motive, the superiority of Christianity is undeniable when compared to Islam.

Cultural superiority of Christianity over Islam – Making a better world

Not only do history’s revisionists attempt to find moral equivalency between the Crusades and Muslim aggression, they also attempt to elevate Muslim culture in comparison with Western civilization. Arab claims of a sophisticated and superior culture are not the result of Arab development but are the results of what they learned from the cultures of their subject peoples, the dhimmi populations which included the Byzantium (Judeo-Christian-Greek cultures); Egyptian (the Copts and Nestorians), Persian (Zoroastrian), and Hindu. Most Arab science and learning was originated with and translated into Arabic by these assimilated dhimmis.[3]

Claims of a superior and advanced Muslim culture were enhanced by comparison with a supposed backwardness of Christendom as a result of the Dark Ages. Moderns often describe the Dark Ages as a time of intellectual darkness and barbarity during the five or six centuries following the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire during the fifth century.[4]

From the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to well-known historians of the twentieth century, Western intellectuals consistently describe life in Europe during this era as a time of “…barbarism, superstition, [and] ignorance…” (Voltaire 1694-1778). Rousseau (1712-1778) stated that, “Europe had lapsed into the barbarism of the earliest ages.” Historian William Manchester (1922-2004) labeled the period as an era “…of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness…The Dark Ages were stark in every dimension.”[5]

Only recently has the myth of the Dark Ages been recognized. This recognition was noted in the Fifteenth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1981). The “Dark Ages” are no longer recognized as “… a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity.” This period is now acknowledged as “…one of the great innovative eras of mankind” in which Europe’s technological advances placed it well ahead of the rest of the world.[6]

In spite of the humanists’ fiction of intellectual darkness and barbarity during Christendom’s first five centuries in Europe, the influence of those Christian refugees from fallen Rome would ultimately influence and change the world as no other people ever had. But this story is little known or acknowledged in the midst of a hostile humanistic and secular culture that has ascended within America over the last three generations. We are indebted to Alvin Schmidt for giving us a definitive and unapologetic understanding of the unparalleled importance of Christianity in the history of the world. The following is merely a brief mention of the major themes outlined in Paul Maier’s Foreword to Professor Schmidt’s book, How Christianity Changed the World.

…many of our [America’s] institutions and values reflect a Christian origin.

Not only countless individual lives but civilization itself was transformed by Jesus Christ. In the ancient world, his teaching elevated brutish standards of morality, halted infanticide, enhanced human life, emancipated women, abolished slavery, inspired charities and relief organizations, created hospitals, established orphanages, and founded schools.

In the modern era, Christian teaching, properly expressed, advanced science, instilled concepts of political and social and economic freedom, fostered justice, and provided the greatest single source of inspiration for the magnificent achievements in art, architecture, music, and literature…

No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done.[7]

_____

The fiction of moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam has been utterly demolished by the facts as shown in these four articles. However, Christians and others who revere truth must understand that such attempts to find moral equivalency by President Obama and others is but one small battle in the much larger war of ideas and worldviews occurring between humanism and Christianity in America. It is in this battle that Christians must continually be engaged and vigilant for its outcome will determine if we, our children, and our grandchildren will live in freedom or slavery.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] President Barak Obama, “Remarks of the President at the National Prayer Breakfast,” The White House – Office of the Press Secretary, February 1, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast (accessed March 30, 2015).
[2] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), p. 8.
[3] Ibid., pp. 56-57.
[4] Ibid., p. 65.
[5] Ibid., pp. 65-66.
[6] Ibid., P. 66
[7] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001, 2004), pp. 8-9.

Muslim conquests and demise of the Islamic empire

In Part I the origins and explosive growth of the Islamic empire in the seventh and eighth centuries were described. Muslim domination of its distant empires waxed and waned over the course of its twelve centuries of war on the world. In 1672, the forces of the Muslim caliph Mu-Awiyah (previously mentioned in Part II) ruling from his capital in Damascus decided to attack Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire (today known as Istanbul). Sailing from the Syrian coast, Muslim ships entered the Dardanelles and moved north through the narrow strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Marmara Sea. At the north end of the Dardanelles lay Constantinople, gateway to the Balkans from which a Muslim victory would have allowed the invaders to attack all of Europe. The defenders of Constantinople easily defeated the Muslims who were forced to cede recently conquered islands in the Aegean and pay tribute. In one of the world’s most consequential battles, all of Europe was saved from Muslim domination. This was the first major defeat of Muslim forces. Soon the Muslim hold on Spain began to ebb, and they were driven from Sicily and Southern Italy.[1] True to their mission of world domination, Muslim conquerors driven out in one area would regroup, conquer, and subjugate other lands and occasionally reconquer lands once held but lost.

For a thousand years Muslims had conquered and subjugated non-Muslims on much of three continents stretching from Spain to portions of India. Their military victories and success in eventual subjugation and establishment of Muslim cultures reinforced their unwavering belief in and allegiance to Islam. The Muslim world’s arrogant confidence rested on the power of the sword, but the sword was also expertly wielded by a short-in-stature infidel from the heart of Europe. In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte struck a blow at the center of the Muslim world that eventually led to its historic collapse. The little French dictator easily conquered Egypt which quickly led to the defeat and colonization of much of the remainder of the Muslim empire by a number of European powers.[2]

Over the centuries, it was Muslim power that dictated what was to be considered right. But when Muslim power failed in the early nineteenth century, they began to imitate many Western ideas including politics, government, customs, outward appearance, and dress. Reeling from the catastrophic collapse of its empire, Muslims began to question their fidelity to the Qur’an and Sharia law. All things Muslim began to appear outdated relics of another age, and many countries such as Turkey began distancing themselves from their Muslim past. According to noted author and journalist Raymond Ibrahim, the Westernization of many countries in the former Muslim empire introduced what he called the “Christian Golden Age” during the colonial and post-colonial years of 1850-1950. Greater freedoms and reduced oppression by the Muslim majority resulted from the direct liberation and protection of Christians by the now dominate European overlords. More importantly, Ibrahim attributes the diminished subjugation and oppression of Christians to a growing Muslim rejection of their former Islamic identities, mentality, and ways of life.[3]

The Crusades

Provoked by four centuries of Muslim wars to conquer and colonize the West, the Crusades were Christian Europe’s response to Muslim plunder, rape, murder, and brutalization from one end of the known world to the other to accomplish their stated goal of world domination under an Islamic caliphate. The Crusades were a series of campaigns that occurred between 1095 and 1291 and intended to end Islam’s brutal control of the Holy Land. At the time of the first campaign, much of what once were Christian territories had been under Muslim domination for four hundred years: the Middle East, Egypt, all of North Africa, Spain, southern Italy, and the major islands of the Mediterranean.[4]

The first Crusade was prompted by a plea for help from Byzantium emperor Alexius Comnenus to Pope Urban II. The letter requested that Europe’s Roman Christians send troops to aid their Eastern Orthodox brethren in repelling the Seljak Turks (recent converts to Islam) that threatened Constantinople. The letter also described the ghastly tortures, rapes, and murders of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and desecration and destruction of Christian churches and Holy sites. Although there were many disagreements on lifestyle and cultural heritage that separated the two branches of Christianity, they stood on common ground in their opposition to the marauding Muslim aggressors.[5]

On a day in late November of 1095, Pope Urban mounted a platform in a meadow outside the city of Clermont, France, to present the Byzantium emperor’s request for assistance. The Pope gazed across the immense crowd that spread in all directions. With a powerful and expressive voice he began describing the conditions being experienced by their fellow believers at Constantinople and the persecutions of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The crowd was stirred by the Pope’s passionate words, and plans were made to set out the following year to avenge Muslim wrongs and reclaim the Holy Land.[6]

In the exuberance and excitement of the moment, many in the crowd may not have understood the difficulties and hardships that lay ahead. But many of the nobles and knights present that day were not foolish or naïve for a number had made pilgrimages to the Holy Land or had close relatives or associates that had made the journey. They knew of the difficulties, cost, perils, hardships, and bloody battles that such a venture would entail in defeating the ferocious and determined Muslim foe.[7]

The Crusades were led by heads of families at immense personal cost with little hope or expectation of material reward. For the most part, the kingdoms established and maintained by the Crusaders for two hundred years did not produce material gain. This is confirmed by the fact that the colonies required large subsidies from the Crusaders’ homelands in Europe.[8]

How can one find moral equivalency between twelve centuries of Muslim conquest and domination with the five campaigns of the Crusaders? One cannot. It is more correct to say the heinousness of twelve centuries of consistent and concerted Muslim aggression over three continents far outweighs the sporadic Crusades over two centuries and which were confined to a relatively small area. This comparison is accurate and very illuminating but still seems unsatisfactory because it fails to speak to morality.

We must first clarify that good motives do not in themselves excuse immoral actions, but an examination of motives (good and bad) can determine if moral equivalency exists. Put another way, those with bad behavior that seek moral objectives are not morally equivalent to those with bad behavior that seek self-serving objectives. Therefore, to determine moral equivalency, we must look to the motives of the Muslims and Crusaders. What were their central motives? What drove their aggression?

As with all military conflicts between peoples, the motivations for war are not all the same. Many wars are fought to gain lands, booty, power, and forced conversions. This was the undeniable motive of Muslims which rested on a militant theocracy bent on world domination. At the other end of the spectrum, motives for war may include fighting to defend one’s homeland, to attain freedom, to advance a righteous cause (e.g., end slavery and suffering), or to achieve a host of other noble objectives that may still contain a degree of selflessness. It is only in examining motives for going to war that we can comparatively judge the morality of the combatants. The execution and events of war itself must be judged separately from the motives for going to war. Even when the motives for going to war are known, the acts of war itself may often cloud those motives in retrospect. Over the centuries the true motives of the Crusaders appear to have often become clouded in in the minds of modern historians.

It is in the failures of the Crusaders’ actions, often unfairly judged by modern standards, as opposed to a right understanding the principle motives driving the Crusades that has caused widespread denigration of Christianity and Western civilization over the last three hundred years. The Crusades began as a noble and holy mission, and many of the knights leading the expeditions viewed their endeavor as such. Their goal was to liberate the Holy Land and end the suffering and death being inflicted upon their fellow Christians. The Crusaders’ actions frequently fell short of their higher purposes for going to war. In spite of these shortcomings and failures, the details of history present a compelling confirmation of the worthy motivations of most Crusaders.[9]

In Part IV, the efforts of those that use the Crusades to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam will be exposed as falsehoods aimed at denigrating Christianity and Western civilization. More importantly, we shall present the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam through a comparison of the contributions of each for the betterment of the world.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), p. 36-37.
[2] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again-Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), p. 10.
[3] Ibid., p. 10-13.
[4] Stark, p. 9.
[5] Ibid., pp. 2-4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 8.
[8] Ibid., p. 8.
[9] Ibid., pp. 117-118.

To judge the moral equivalency of Christianity with Islam, we must have a general understanding of Islam and what its followers profess to be truth. This understanding comes as we briefly explore the nature of Islam and its concepts, beliefs, and practices that are fundamental to the Muslim faith.

Sources of Islamic belief and law

• Qur’an – The revelations of God (Allah) to his prophet Muhammad over a twenty two year period in the seventh century.
• Sharia law – the Islamic moral code and religious law which deals with the institutions and daily life of the ummah (Muslim community).
• “Hadith” – Other words and deeds attributed to Muhammad but not found in the Qur’an.
• The rulings of the Islamic legal authorities (the “ulema”—its scholars, sheikhs, clerics, and muftis—both past and present).
• Historical texts that document jihad against Christendom over the centuries.[1]

Anti-Christian nature of the Qur’an

Islam’s ultimate authority lies in the words of Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an,[2] purported to be revelations from Allah. The Quran (Koran) is intrinsically anti-Christian as shown by the following verses:

Christian Trinity – “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity : for there is no god except One Allah.” [Quran 5:76]

Christ is not God – “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of man…” [Quran 5:19]

Christians are infidels and enemies of Islam who must be subjugated – “…fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…[Quran 9:5] “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [Quran 9:29]

Jews and pagans were considered by Muslims as the most hostile to Islam and least likely to convert. However, Christians are supposed to have a greater affinity for the message of Islam and can be expected to convert. Therefore, defenders of Islam who claim that it is a religion of peace often point to a number of verses in the Quran that seem to be quite friendly to Christianity. [See: Quran 5:82-93]

However, such verses are misleading because of the doctrine of “abrogation” (an instance of repealing). There are many contradictory verses in the Qur’an. To handle the resulting confusion as to what the Qur’an actually meant, early Islamic jurisprudence determined that whenever contradictory verses were found, the verse from later revelations of Muhammad would abrogate or cancel out the verse from his earlier pronouncements. This is confirmed by the Qur’an itself. “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar : knowest though not that Allah hath power over all things? [Quran 2:106] Synonyms for abrogate are repeal, revoke, abolish, and nullify.

The Christian friendly verses were voiced by Muhammad early in his career when he had no power. Those verses were replaced by Qur’an 9:29 (see above) and many others verses that are exceedingly hostile and intolerant to Christians and which were voiced later in his career when he had attained power.[3] In accordance with the doctrine of abrogation, the earlier Christian-friendly verses were repealed and caused to be forgotten.

Jihad

One must understand that the ultimate goal of Muslims is to conquer and subject the world to Islamic rule. Jihad is the unending Muslim holy war designed to conquer the world by converting or subjugating infidels and eliminating those that stand in their way. In the Encyclopedia of Islam, jihad is required because the “…spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general…Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam…”[4] If there is any doubt as to the purpose of jihad in Islam, Muslim scholar, philosopher, and historian Ibn Khadum has settled the issue.

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force…The other religious groups did not have a universal mission…They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people…But Islam is under obligation to gain power over the nations.[5]

Jizya

In a Muslim dominated society, Jizya is tribute money required to be paid by People of the Book (Christians) “…with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” Again, we refer to Quran 9:29 (see above) to confirm this requirement. There are also many other verses that require infidels to be despised and systematically humiliated. Ibn Kathir further illuminates the heinous meaning of the Quran.

Allah said, “until they pay the jizya,” if they do not choose to embrace Islam, “with willing submission,” that is, in defeat and subservience, “and feel themselves subdued,” that is, disgraced, humiliated, and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the dhimmis or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated.[6]

From the very earliest years following Muhammad’s death, the particulars of how Christians were to be made to feel themselves subdued were spelled out in precise detail in a document called The Conditions of Omar (Omar bin al-Khattab who reigned from 634-644). These conditions and restrictions were intended to humiliate and degrade Christians in every aspect of their lives life under Muslim rule including religion, business, housing, public demeanor, speech, dress, and deference to Muslims.[7]

Caliphate

Under Islamic rule there is no separation of church and state. The Caliphate is a unified government that rules the ummah, which is the entire Muslim community. As Allah is the only lawgiver, there is no legislature, and Muslims consider the caliphate as the highest type of political organization. Where human governments rule in the Muslim world, they only exist to enforce Allah’s law. From the very beginning of Islamic rule by caliphs, each would choose a location in which to base his empire. Prior Sunni caliphates ruled from Damascus, Baghdad, and Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire was the last Sunni caliphate and was ruled for 500 years by Ottoman sultans. The Turkish Grand National Assembly abolished the caliphate in 1924.[8]

Caliph (Imam)

Allah’s vicegerent on earth is the Caliph or supreme leader that governs the Muslim community. He is charged with administering and enforcing Sharia law by rendering “righteous judgement” between men. One of the puzzlements of non-Muslims is the reason for the incessant fighting between Muslims sects. Muhammad died in 632 but did not leave instructions as to selection of his successor. The Sunnis believe that any believer in Allah was eligible to fill the office of Caliph. The Shias believed that the Imams (their word for Caliph) must come from Muhammad’s bloodline. Following Muhammad’s death the first three caliphs were Sunnis but severely criticized as being wealthy tyrants. The fourth caliph was Ali, a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, considered to be the first caliph eligible to fill the office because he was of the prophet’s bloodline. Ali was murdered and replaced by a Mu-Awiyah, a Sunni caliph who set up his capital in Damascus. This was the beginning of the schism in Islam that is as intense today as it was at its beginning in the seventh century.[9] About ninety percent of the world’s one billion plus Muslims are Sunnis, and the remainder is Shiites[10] who reside mostly in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon.

In Part III we shall examine the growth and subsequent decline of the Muslim empire and Christendom’s response in the Middle Ages. Following that, we shall examine the modern misinterpretation of Muslim history and culture as well as the distortion of Christian history and the Crusades.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again-Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), p. 18.
[2] All quotations from the Quran are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[3] Ibrahim, p. 19.
[4] Ibid., p. 21.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., pp. 22-23.
[7] Ibid., pp. 24-25.
[8] Jay Sekulow, “The Rise of ISIS & The New Caliphate,” The City, Volume VII, Number 3, Winter 2015, 22-24.
[9] Sekulow, 22-24.; J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 329, 333.
[10] “Compare Sunni and Shia Muslims,” Religions Facts.
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islamic_sects.htm (accessed March 31, 2015).

During his presidency, Barak Obama has been the chief American apologist for Islam in spite of a worldwide upsurge of terror conducted by its adherents. Open Doors ministry reported that of the fifty countries with the worst persecution, forty-one are Muslim.[1] Both the Vatican and the Center for Study of Global Christianity reported that 100,000 Christians died in 2012 because they were Christian—devout, nominal, or cultural. These statistics include Christians killed for their beliefs or ethnicity, killed while worshiping in a church, murdered because they were children of Christians, or killed because of their Christian witness.[2] Most of the deaths were at the hands of Muslims and committed in the name of Islam as dictated by the Qur’an. Given the substantial increase in Muslim violence against Christian minorities in the Middle East since 2012, the number of Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims most certainly will increase substantially.

The Obama administration refuses to accurately label the world’s battle against terrorism for what it is—a religious war with radical Islamists. He states that, “…I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology.”[3] That the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims in the United States reject the fundamental tenets of radical Islam is debatable. But, what is not debatable is that the forty-one governments of the top fifty countries in the world with the worst records of persecution are Muslim and represent an overwhelming majority of all the world’s Muslims. And most of those countries are enforcing a rigid adherence to the commands of the Qur’an. The President’s implied peacefulness of Islam is spurious when one sees the reality of the vast persecution of Christians in the Muslim world. Where statistics of persecution may seem minimal in some Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, it is only because Christianity is so suppressed as to be virtually eradicated and non-existent.

Because the President’s defense of Islam is so obviously groundless, he endeavors to minimize Muslim persecution of Christians by claims of moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam as to their respective historical abuses. A recent example of this was at, of all places, the National Prayer Breakfast where the President attempted to equate certain supposed evils in Christian history to that of modern Islamic terrorism.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge–or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon…We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism—terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.[4]

Those using the moral equivalence argument attempt to equate two distinct and dissimilar things that are not, in fact, equal. In such cases, whether used in a positive or negative sense, the argument is fallacious because the two are dissimilar. In his Prayer Breakfast speech, President Obama used moral equivalence in a negative sense by effectively labeling the supposed crimes committed in the name of Christianity as equivalent to the modern-day atrocities committed in the name of Islam. By doing so, the Apologist-in-Chief for Islam attempted to turn the focus of religious persecution on Christianity instead Islam.

President Obama’s comments at the National Prayer Breakfast were wrong on two counts. First, the President misreads the history of Islam and its conflict with Christianity and Western civilization. Second, the President, his administration, and most of the liberal establishment blatantly distort the true nature of Islam. In this series of articles we shall examine the origins and nature of Islam as compared to Christianity and Christendom’s past response to Muslim aggression.

Origins of Islam

Unlike the Christian Bible that was the product of the revelation of God to a host of writers over a 1600 year period, the Quran was a product of the verbal utterances of Muhammad born about AD 570 of poor parents who were members of a minor clan of an important Bedouin tribe living in the harsh desert conditions of the Arabian peninsula. As a young man he preached a monotheistic God. Most Arabs of the era were polytheistic, but monotheism was not a new message for there were Christian Arabs before there were Muslims. A descendant of Abraham, Muhammad saw himself as a messenger of God who will judge all men. Salvation was to be obtained by following his will in their personal and social behavior as well as religious observances. Over a period of twenty-two years, these revelations were written down by his followers but not collected together as the Quran until after his death. Even though there had been other prophets before him including the last who was Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad believed all of their revelations had been falsified by Jews and Christians. Now Muslims were to believe that through Mahammad God had spoken his last message to mankind.[5]

Islam was a religion invented and built upon the sword, conquest, and forced conversion. Salvation came through works, and its primary work was war against the infidel by which is meant any who were not followers of Islam. Beginning with the Muslim prophet’s first successful caravan raid followed by twelve centuries of Muslim conquests, Islam was unequivocally linked with worldly success and power. In the first few decades of Islam’s existence, Muslims conquered half of the lands of historic Christianity including Syria and Egypt. According to one medieval Muslim historian, the Mediterranean was quickly turned into a “Muslim lake” in which “the Christians could no longer float a plank…”[6]

Just before his death, Muhammad told his followers, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” His words are confirmed by his previous instructions recorded in the Qur’an: “…then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them…” [Qur’an 9:5] Faithful to the Qur’an and Muhammad’s final words, his followers set out to conquer the world, and that is the goal of faithful followers of Islam in the twenty first century.

Before he died in 632, Muhammad had unified the Bedouin tribes in Arabia. The first conquest by his followers was Syria in 635, then part of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire). Palestine, then a part of Syria, was conquered by 638. At the same time the Arabs attacked western Persia (Mesopotamia known as Iraq today) and it fell to the Muslim invaders. Soon, eastern Persia (known as Iran today) was invaded and conquered. The Muslim invaders turned north and subdued Armenia and then traveled east to occupy the Indus Valley (modern Pakistan) and over the centuries expanded into India. In 641 all of Egypt surrendered to the Muslim invaders. During the last half of the 600s, Muslims conquered the North African coast all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, crossed isthmus separating Africa and Europe, and captured Spain. Eventually the islands of the Mediterranean and southern Italy were defeated and brought into the Muslim empire.[7]

Because of Muslim dominance of the Mediterranean and the lands in between, the Latin West was effectively separated from the Greek East. Muslim conquests of Spain and dominance of the Mediterranean placed the entire European continent under threat of Muslim attack.[8] During the thousand years that followed, some of the conquered nations cast off their Muslim captors. But Muslim conquest and domination of much of the world continued for ten centuries until a shocking defeat in 1798 led to the demise of the Muslim empire for the next 150 years.

In Part II, the nature of Islam and its concepts, beliefs, and practices that are fundamental to the Muslim faith will be examined

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “World Watch List Countries,” Open Doors. http://www.worldwatchlist.us/ (accessed September 15, 2014).
[2] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “Counting the Cost (Accurately),” Christianity Today, August 21, 2013. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september/counting-cost-accurately.html (accessed September 16, 2013).
[3] Jeremy Diamond, “Why President Obama won’t call the fight on terror a war on radical Islam,” CNN, February 1, 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/01/politics/obama-radical-islam-terrorism-war/index.html (accessed March 30, 2015).
[4] President Barak Obama, “Remarks of the President at the National Prayer Breakfast,” The White House – Office of the Press Secretary, February 1, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast (accessed March 30, 2015).
[5] J. M. Roberts, The New History of the World, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2003, pp. 324-327.
[6] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again-Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), p. 9.
[7] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), pp. 12, 15-23.
[8] Ibrahim, p. 9.