March 15, 2006
Q&A with Professor Ron
[Note: Ron has a Doctorate in Religious Studies (D.R.S.) and is an adjunct professor at Mesa Community College where he teaches comparative world religions and Introduction to the New Testament]
Question: What do you make of the violent Muslim reaction to the cartoons depicting, among other things, the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his head?
The cartoons are all over the Internet including this website by the Danish artist himself. Warning: This may be offensive, especially to Muslim readers.
Answer: Prelude: If one looks at the cartoons they are quite modest by most western satirical standards. The Danish newspaper that published them said that it printed the cartoons as “a test of whether Muslim fundamentalists had begun affecting the freedom of expression in Denmark.” (Blog site above) I guess they got their answer…
From my perspective the conflict reveals a number of things including:
- The clash of cultures
- Western insensitivity
- The violent nature of radical Islam
1. It shows the clash of cultures.
Islam is a theocratic (lit. the rule of God) religion, which means that there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state.” This is the cultural divide: The manner in which western democratic (lit. the rule of the people) societies have been able to separate their church preferences in order to establish an impartial non-church run state.1
On the other hand, in Islamic countries, Sharia, or the Law of Allah & Islam, governs both the secular and religious life of the devout Muslim. Indeed, Sharia prescribes religious ritual as well as many of the aspects of day-to-day life including politics, education, entertainment, economics, business, social issues, etc.2 As a result, Islamic nations cannot conceive of a people who do not reverence the Law of God/Allah nor order their lives according to the centralized foundation of religion.
It might help Muslims to know that there continues to be a cultural war in all western countries and especially in America over secular interpretations of the Jeffersonian notion of the “separation of church and state.”3
Indeed, many Christians have been marginalized by the secularists because of their deeply held religious values. However, nearly 76 million modern evangelicals in America are no longer content with sitting idly by while their nation descends into an abyss of moral depravity, philosophical relativism, and legislative atheism. Instead, they have embraced their biblical calling and are empowering their children to be “salt and light” as citizens of a kingdom which both ultimately transcends and yet dynamically transforms human culture. Yet such transformation never depends upon governmental enforcement. For as Jesus asserted, “My kingdom is not of this world…otherwise my servants would fight” (Matthew 18:36).
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thought raised up against the knowledge of God and we are taking captive every thought in obedience to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).
2. It demonstrates western insensitivity.
I was virtually insulted when a liberal news commentator arrogantly declared that “Muslims will just have to learn that democracy means that we have the right to blaspheme.” Oh really?! Maybe that’s his definition of democracy but it’s not mine—nor would it be the meaning of democracy to any sincerely religious American citizen be they Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. This again is the reality of the cultural war that continues to foment between the religious and non-religious in all western cultures.
Freedom does not give us the right to do what we want, but the power to do what we ought. In other words, freedom implies responsibility—which includes the need to be sensitive to others. And sensitivity would most certainly be part of the universal religious ideal of love—for God and others. Such love is not rude or arrogant or offensive in nature.4 It always seeks the best for others–attempting to win the person to a more enlightened position rather than to assault them with inflammatory speech. That’s why Jesus said, “Blessed are the makers and maintainers of peace [rather than inducers of strife], for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9, Amp.) Unfortunately we live in a “fallen world” where both the wheat (children of righteousness) and weeds (children of iniquity) are growing together until the harvest at the end of the age. The best we can do is to apologize for the indiscretion of non-religious secular Americans to our offended Muslim neighbors.
Hopefully, by honestly identifying with Muslim religious sentiments regarding the sacred, American Christians can help them understand American historic values and experiences without having it so rudely thrown into their faces.
3. It exposes the violent nature of radical Islam.
My insult over the insensitivity of the western journalist was virtually counterbalanced by my horror in hearing the reaction of a particular Imam (spiritual leader) who declared that “We will never forgive this outrage toward the Prophet Muhammad…but will require the death of the blasphemers! Their hands and heads should be cut off!” Apparently there is no forgiveness or redemption in Islam—or at least not in this extremely radical version of Islam.
Make no mistake about it…there is a radical version of Islam from people like Osama Bin Laden et al, which justifies murder in the name of submission (lit. Islam) to Allah.5 Such radical Muslims are avowed and incorrigible enemies of the free-world, democracy and religious pluralism—intending to use any weapon possible (nuclear, biological, or otherwise) to “wipe off the face of the earth”6 Israel, the United States, and any other country that does not submit to Islamic Law—at least as they interpret it.
This radical version of Islam not only needs to be defended against by all the forces which free societies can marshal, but should also be deplored by more modern and moderate voices within Islam itself. However, I would suggest that similar to American Christians, so too are the more moderate Muslims finding it difficult to differentiate themselves from the radical elements within Islam. Nevertheless, just as we Christians in America would argue that non-religious Americans are misusing the term democracy—as a cloak for blasphemy, so too should moderate Muslims argue that the radical elements within Islam are hijacking their religion to perpetrate a misguided Jihad against the West. On this point of agreement, moderate Muslims and American Christians need to find a common voice for the mutual objective of peaceful coexistence.
 This freedom has specifically been informed by the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, which have given rise to modernism and the founding of America on the basis of religious pluralism—from which is derived the notion of freedom of religion and/or (by necessity) the freedom from religion.
 See “The Myth of the Separation of Church and State” article @http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
 1Corinthians 13:4-7
 This “holy war” is called Jihad in Islam and is applied as either a “spiritual struggle” or “military conflict” to destroy the infidels. Martyrs of Jihad are even promised to have 72 virgins…See http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html
 A recent quote of the President of Iran.http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html