It seems many of our politicians and journalists are either abysmally ignorant of the teachings of the foundational books of Islam as well as with the early brutal and violent history of its spread throughout the world, or could they be deliberately avoiding telling the truth about the matter based upon the misguided idea that doing so might somehow diminish the danger posed by violent extremists operating under this banner? It is especially disconcerting that so many refuse to understand that until the nature of a problem is truly understood no effective solution will likely be found.
The extremists who are terrorizing our world today are correctly and aptly designated, “Islamic Fundamentalists.” I am a Christian fundamentalist. Tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of us, exist in our world today. A Christian fundamentalist is just that. He believes his basic guide book, the New Testament, and the teachings of Christ are God-given and should strictly form the basis of his life philosophy and inform and guide his every day action.
Just what is the difference in the Christian fundamentalist and the Islamic fundamentalist and how do their views about the validity of the use of violence to advance their faith differ? The central theme of the New Testament is love: God’s love for mankind as revealed by Christ on the cross and the Christian’s love for God, his brother and his neighbor. Jesus said that such love would be the primary identifying characteristic of His true followers.. Conversely, hate and hateful action, especially gratuitous violence, are clearly proscribed and condemned.
It should be clear then that a Christian fundamentalist could never validly use violence in any form to spread a gospel of love and win true converts to the cause of Christianity. The coercion involved in such action would violate the first great commandment on love given by Jesus and deny the principle of free will and be a contradiction in concepts.
Who is a Islamic fundamentalist? Could he be correctly characterized, as is the Christian fundamentalist, as one who strictly follows the teaching of his founder and prophet, as found in his source book(s)? Are politicians, journalists and even the ordinary man in the street, correct in labelling those of that faith who advocate hatred and even destruction of those who will not convert to their religion as Islamic fundamentalists?
Is it wrong to call those who have, over the past decades, slaughtered thousands of innocents in the name of their religion, Islamic fundamentalists? Is it incorrect to call those who proudly claim that identity and use their fundamentalist teachings to recruit new fodder for the deadly war of terror they are waging, Islamic fundamentalists? Is it inconsistent to call those who decry Islamic moderates as apostates because they have departed from the fundamentals of the faith, as they see it is revealed in their book, Islamic fundamentalists? Could this be one of the difficulties moderates and others face in combating the phenomenon of jihad? Could it also be true that one thing that makes the appeal of Jihadism effective to young Muslims is that the Jihadist can correctly say that so-called moderate Muslims have departed from the true faith as taught in their holy book(s) and by their prophet? Is the Islamic fundamentalist a legitimate Moslem, as defined by his book and by the history of his religion? If so, how can leaders and nations refusing to correctly identify their sworn enemies hope to combat such an insidious threat?
- Pastor John White
