Not Peace but a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam

by Robert Spencer

  Christians who believe that they and Muslims share a common aspiration to be “totally devoted to God” are not guilty of deception. But they have been deceived.

  The Common Word document suggests its true intentions in its Qur’anic epigraph: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and contend with them in the fairest way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright.” This verse (16:125) is a curious choice to head up a document that is ostensibly devoted to finding common ground for dialogue and mutual cooperation—unless the intention is actually only to proselytize.

  The use of this epigraph recalls the words of the Egyptian Islamic supremacist writer Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the great theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”204 Muslims in the U.S. and Europe often term their outreach to non-Muslims “bridge-building,” but to Muslims this expression has a very different meaning.

  A further explanation of the “common word” passage from the Qur’an makes it clear that building a bridge only so that Catholics may convert to Islam is indeed the objective of the “Common Word” document and initiative as a whole.

  Clearly, the blessed words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God. Clearly also, worshipping none but God, relates to being totally devoted to God and hence to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries (tafsir) on the Holy Qur’an . . . that none of us shall take others for lords beside God means “that none of us should obey in disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God.” In other words, that Muslims, Christians, and Jews should be free to each follow what God commanded them, and not have “to prostrate before kings and the like”; for God says elsewhere in the Holy Qur’an: Let there be no compulsion in religion. . . . (Al-Baqarah, 2:256). This clearly relates to the Second Commandment and to love of the neighbour of which justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part.

  In this there is nothing to which Christians could object, but the reference to prostrating before others besides God becomes more pointed when, immediately following it, the Muslim leaders “as Muslims invite Christians to remember Jesus’ words in the Gospel (Mark 12:29-31)”:

  “The LORD our God, the LORD is one. /And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. / And the second, like it, is this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.

  The juxtaposition is striking. This passage from the Common Word document speaks not only of the two Great Commandments but of worshipping none but God alone. Then we have Jesus enunciating the two Great Commandments beginning with the affirmation that “the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” The framers of the Common Word document, undoubtedly familiar with the Qur’an’s anti-Trinitarian passages, here are subtly using Jesus’ words to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity even as they pretend to be seeking points of agreement.

  In closing, the Common Word document adds another indictment of Christian theology veiled as an invitation to cooperation: “Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions . . . that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God.”

  Anyone acquainted with Islam’s view of the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ cannot fail to see this as a call to abandon orthodox Christianity. Nonetheless, in some quarters the response to the Common Word document was enthusiastic. Noting the Muslim scholars’ declaration that “the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians,” the headline in the British newspaper the Telegraph depicted the document, in language that was typical of the international coverage, as “Muslim scholars’ olive branch to Christians.”205 Reuters wrote excitedly about an “Unprecedented Muslim call for peace with Christians.”206 Dinesh D’Souza praised the 138 authors of the document: “Certainly some relief was in order, because Muslims who seek common cause with the West, or at least with the Christian West, are far preferable to those who seek to destroy us.”207

  Rowan Williams, then the archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion worldwide, exulted: “The appearance of the A Common Word [Open Letter] of 2007 was a landmark in Muslim-Christian relations and it has a unique role in stimulating a discussion at the deepest level across the world.”208 Even Pope Benedict XVI, during his May 2009 visit to Jordan, hailed such initiatives as having “achieved much good in furthering an alliance of civilizations between the West and the Muslim world, confounding the predictions of those who consider violence and conflict inevitable.”209 However, his other statements made this appear more to be an expression of hope than a statement of fact. The next day he observed, during his visit to the King Hussein Mosque in Amman, Jordan, that the Common Word letter “echoed a theme consonant with my first encyclical: the unbreakable bond between love of God and love of neighbor, and the fundamental contradiction of resorting to violence or exclusion in the name of God (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 16).”210

  In that same 2009 address, Pope Benedict also gingerly brought up the Muslim persecution of Christians in Iraq:

  Before I leave you this morning I would like to acknowledge in a special way the presence among us of His Beatitude Emmanuel III Delly, Patriarch of Baghdad, whom I greet most warmly. His presence brings to mind the people of neighboring Iraq many of whom have found welcome refuge here in Jordan. The international community’s efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, together with those of the local leaders, must continue in order to bear fruit in the lives of Iraqis. I wish to express my appreciation for all those who are assisting in the endeavors to deepen trust and to rebuild the institutions and infrastructure essential to the well-being of that society. And once again, I urge diplomats and the international community they represent together with local political and religious leaders to do everything possible to ensure the ancient Christian community of that noble land its fundamental right to peaceful coexistence with their fellow citizens.211

  This was an extraordinarily important moment, for true dialogue and mutual respect do not advance by papering over or ignoring significant differences, and certainly not by slyly appealing for conversion under the guise of respectful discussion, but by frankly and honestly confronting serious issues and offering to discuss them in a respectful manner. Even if the Common Word appeal were entirely sincere, the escalating Muslim persecution of Christians in Muslim lands, perpetrated by Muslims acting in accord with mainstream understandings of Qur’anic teaching and Islamic law, indicates that all too many Muslims do not share the desire for peaceful and respectful coexistence professed by the authors and signers of the Common Word document.

  The leaders of the Common Word initiative have never publicized any attempts to establish any kind of dialogue with their coreligionists, to try to bring them to a more positive view of Christians.

  That is telling. And it is essentially all there is to go on. There are many friendly, non-violent Muslims in the world, and many have Christian friends. But although it is relatively easy to find Muslims who have no intention ever of acting upon the Islamic texts and teachings that jihadists use to justify violence, it is significantly harder to find Muslims who will actively repudiate those teachings and reinterpret those texts. Muslim spokesmen in the West generally deny that there are any violent teachings in Islam, or practice moral equivalence when confronted with them, claiming that Christianity is just as violent or even more so, as if that is a sufficient
answer to the problem of Islam-inspired violence around the world today. Deception is not reform, although among Muslim spokesmen today there is considerable confusion between the two.

  Conclusion

  Not Peace but a Sword

  “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”

  — Jeremiah 6:14

  It is hard for modern Westerners to believe that there could exist a group with which they could not reach some peaceful accord, some framework for friendly coexistence as equals on a sustainable basis. It seems inconceivable to many Catholics, looking for allies against secularism and the culture of death, to believe that their gestures of goodwill towards Islam would not be reciprocated and would even be regarded with contempt.

  Yet, despite the peaceful overtures of Muslims such as those involved in the Common Ground initiative—even when sincere—that is exactly the attitude built into the heart of Islam. It teaches its followers to regard non-Muslims—especially those among the “People of the Book” who have rejected Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Islam—as “the worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6). They have no compelling interest to have good relations with them except so as to protect Muslim communities in non-Muslim countries. The Islamic imperative remains to make them Muslims or else make them “pay the tribute out of hand” and be “humbled” (Qur’an 9:29).

  What, then, is to be done? Are we condemned to perpetual hostility between Catholicism and Islam, punctuated by attempts at “outreach” featuring smiling, disingenuous Muslims and credulous, well-meaning Catholics? Do there exist any true boundaries for peaceful coexistence, even cooperation?

  Any attempt at legitimate and peaceful dialogue must proceed not by ignoring, denying, or glossing over differences but by confronting them honestly and charitably. And Catholics should be aware of Muhammad’s dictum that “war is deceit” and enter into such dialogue shrewdly aware of the fullness of Islam’s teachings about itself, about Christianity, and about warfare against unbelievers (as well as the role that deception plays in that warfare).

  We can enter into dialogue, but we must do so with our eyes open. We can work together on ventures of common interest, but we must do so knowing that the Muslim party will never regard Catholics as equal partners or consider the partnership lastingly viable.

  The title of this book is not a call to war any more than it was when the Lord Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). It is a call to Catholics to take up a sword—not the sword of conquest and subjugation, but what St. Paul called the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17): To bear witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed, standing firm on the truth without compromise or dissembling in the interests of getting along with a group that will never—barring a massive transformation of Islamic doctrine—regard Catholics as anything but renegades from the true faith that the Muslim prophet Jesus taught. But such a massive transformation is extraordinarily unlikely.

  For one thing, there is no single unifying authority, no pope of Islam, who can oversee and guide an Islamic “reformation.” Further stymying the possibility of reform is the belief that the Qur’an was dictated by Allah word for word, miraculously protected from scribal error, and contains no human element whatsoever. Then there is the high value placed upon juridical consensus in Islam; a matter upon which the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence have agreed is considered no longer open to question, since Muhammad promised that his community would not agree on an error. Since jihad warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation is rooted in the Qur’anic text and sealed by juridical consensus, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will ever be revisited on a large scale in the Islamic world.

  ***

  Secularism is encroaching upon the West, making it ever more difficult to hold fast to the fullness of the Faith in a culture that is daily growing more hostile to it. In such a world it is always good to have allies. Pope Benedict XVI enunciated a noble aspiration in September 2012 when he said to young Muslims and Christians in Beirut: “It is vital that the Middle East in general, looking at you, should understand that Muslims and Christians, Islam and Christianity, can live side by side without hatred, with respect for the beliefs of each person, so as to build together a free and humane society.”212 It is indeed up to Muslims worldwide, particularly in Pakistan and Egypt, where Muslims are persecuting Christians with increasing ferocity, to demonstrate that that harmony is possible.

  Yet a true ally is not one who is likely to turn and join one’s enemies in the struggle, or to initiate new hostilities within the alliance once the battle is won. The doctrines of Islam that inculcate among all too many Muslims hatred and suspicion of Christianity and Christians have never been reformed or rejected by any Islamic sect. Catholics who believe that their Muslim dialogue partners desire to establish a lasting friendship, or who trust Muslims to be faithful brothers-in-arms in the culture war, should proceed with full awareness of the contents of Islamic doctrine, and with an awareness of the many pitfalls involved.

  Ultimately, the requirements of charity do not include the denial of the truth. We may want to believe that Islam is a spiritual cousin and a moral partner, and that idea may be greatly comforting; but its comforts will one day evanesce before the sword that the complacently self-deceived had thought they had staved off forever.

  Epilogue

  Is the Only Good Muslim a Bad Muslim? The Kreeft/Spencer Debate

  On November 4, 2010, Robert Spencer and Peter Kreeft debated the proposition “The Only Good Muslim Is a Bad Muslim” at The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Moderating was John Zmirak, a professor at the college. This transcript is presented with Dr. Kreeft’s consent.

  Professor Zmirak: I’m very proud to have with me the most distinguished writers in their fields alive, the most distinguished Catholic philosophical writer in English, Dr. Peter Kreeft, and the leading expert on jihad and political Islam, Mr. Robert Spencer. Dr. Kreeft has written a book called Between Allah and Jesus exploring the interface and the interactions and the commonalities and divergences between Christianity and Islam. Dr. Kreeft is also a professor of philosophy at Boston College and has written more than forty-five books; I’ve read a large percentage of them and enjoyed them immensely. I’m very honored and proud he was able to make it. Mr. Spencer is author of ten books and he’s also the editor of JihadWatch.com.

  Our topic is “Resolved: that the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.” Mr. Spencer will be speaking first, in the affirmative, for twenty minutes, then Dr. Kreeft responds for twenty minutes, then there will be twenty minutes of them asking each other questions. Then I’ll pose a few questions. There will be opportunities for questions from the audience. So Mr. Spencer, if you would like to lead off . . .

  Mr. Spencer: Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming and thank you to everyone at Thomas More College for hosting this. I think this is a discussion that needs to be had in the public square and is all too often ignored and not held where it should be, and so I hope that this will perhaps bring some needed attention to these questions. It’s a great honor for me to be appearing with Dr. Kreeft, who was my professor many hundreds of years ago.

  Dr. Kreeft’s book Between Allah and Jesus is one that I read with great interest, and I certainly see what is the motive behind what he’s trying to do in it, insofar as I understand it correctly and why he would want to portray Islam in this manner. Now the question before us is somewhat uncomfortable; it even seems kind of insulting to say that the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim—especially in a context where we have a Catholic college hosting a debate and it’s as if one of the debate participants, namely myself, is saying that religious people of a certain kind should be discouraged from holding to their religion. It seems like something that other religious people should not be in the position of saying, and certainly it seems like
something that most religious people would reject out of hand on the face of it and say, “Obviously this is not true, because we all know that the people who are committing violence in the name of Islam are twisting and hijacking the religion. If they only go back to the tenants of the Qur’an and of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, then this problem and attendant problems of terrorism and Islamic supremacism would evanesce.”

  And I think it’s in that spirit that Dr. Kreeft wrote his book. It is something devoutly to be wished that people of good will of all faiths could find some common accord and work on that common accord for their shared values. We have even seen that happen between the Catholic Church and Islamic countries at the United Nations against various anti-life initiatives. And so this is something many people have great hope for. The great danger in holding such a hope is that many people fall into and project upon other religious people values which we ourselves may hold, and that therefore we assume that people of other religious traditions must also hold—when actually that’s not the case. And unfortunately I must say, with regret, that I did find a great deal of that kind of thing in this particular book. The idea, for example, is posited several times in the book by the Muslim character, who I think it’s fair to say is the hero of the story. Many times he says that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle. Now that is something that does exist in Islamic tradition. But tonight we are asking: Should Muslim piety be encouraged?

  Should Muslim people be encouraged to be more rigorous and more devout and more fervent in their religious observance? So we have to go back to the wellsprings, to the teachings of Islam in the Qur’an and Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, who is held up in the Qur’an—as in chapter 33, verse 21, which calls him uswa hasana, or the Excellent Example of conduct. In Islamic tradition he is even exalted in many places as al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man. And in practice, in Islamic tradition, even though Muhammad is rebuked several times in the Qur’an (notably in chapter 80) for his sinfulness, in practice, in Islamic tradition, Muhammad is essentially the touchstone of all behavior, and if he did it, then it’s good and right and ought to be imitated. Now, that’s important for the present question, because when we have the Muslim character saying, “Jihad is an interior spiritual struggle,” he is in fact putting himself in the position of contradicting the words and example of Muhammad and the words of the Qur’an itself. There’s an entire chapter of the Qur’an, chapter eight, called al-Anfal: the spoils of war. There are no spoils of war in an interior spiritual struggle. There is no booty to be captured, there are no slave girls to be distributed among the warriors, and yet that chapter of the Qur’an and others contain instruction for doing just that kind of thing. And a fifth of the spoils are reserved for the Prophet himself; he took part in these wars, he actually fought seventy-eight battles during his career as the Prophet, and seventy-seven were offensive in nature. The Qur’an does not teach that jihad is an interior spiritual struggle.