Powered By Blogger

Monday, March 26, 2012

Praying for those who persecute you: Muwahhidun Islam

Christ’s call for the church is to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mat 5:44). These prayers are to be done believing that God will give us what we ask in conformity with His will (Mat 21:22). Christians are also not called to be fearful of other human beings, of whom the worst they can do is kill the body, but rather revere God who controls the soul (Mat 10:28). Operating out of these precepts, Christians have a duty to pray for the Muwahhidun and other more fundamentalist Islamic groups, believing that God will give them an opportunity to fearlessly minister to them. The Muwahhudun, known by their critics as the Wahhabi’s, derive their name from their Unitarian beliefs and the emphasis they place on tawhid, or the oneness of God (Hashmi, "Wahhabiyya.", 727). The founder of this belief system was Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.  This paper looks to provide the reader with a cursory understanding of the beliefs of Muwahhidun particularly at its origins and explore if it is responsible for the jihadist movement. First, the paper will look briefly at basic Islamic teachings, practices and specific passages within the Islamic religious texts. Next, it will look at the history, beliefs and goals of Muhammad Ibn abd al-Wahhab.  Finally, it will look at some of the major thinkers in the jihadist movement including Rashid Rida, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Osama Bin Laden. Throughout the paper, it will address potential connections with Christianity.
            Islam is a life of submission to Allah. It is built upon five pillars or basic beliefs (Stone, Lecture Notes, Islam).  First, the Shahada or the creed that every Muslim must state and believe that “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” Second, the salat or prayer, said five times per day in the direction of Mecca. Third, the zakat, or almsgiving to the poor, it is usually at a rate of two and a half percent. Fourth, the sawm or fasting, which is done primarily during Ramadan. Ramadan is a month during which Muslims fast in the daylight hours. During this month, several festivals occur including Id al Fitr at the end of Ramadan. Fifth, the Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca, done once in and individual’s lifetime as they have the financial means and health to do it. It is also a rite of passage within Islam to be part of a Hajj, elevating ones status. During the hajj, is the festival Id al Ahda, which is the celebration of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. The sixth pillar of Islam, some have suggested is jihad, or struggling (Krygsman, History of the Middle East Course). Properly understood, jihad mainly consists of ones inward struggle to conform to the will of Allah; this is jihad of the heart. Many see jihad of the heart as the greater jihad, that is, greater than jihad of the sword.  Besides the Nicene and Apostles Creed, Christianity does not have any particular requirements for the faith. Nevertheless, it all starts with a genuine confession that Jesus the Christ is God. Prayer is an important part of the Christian journey. Giving to the church and the poor is a chief concern for Christians as evidence of faith but not salvation. Fasting, while it has gone out of style in the protestant church, still is present in Lent observance in varying forms. Christians really do not have anything that parallels the hajj, while one could say Christians are encouraged to visit the Holly Land, Palestine; going on one does not give one an elevated status in the community. The celebration of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son could be a connection pointing to God’s willingness to sacrifice His sons for our sins. Finally, Christians also face a jihad of the heart, as they seek to live in accordance with the will of God.
            The Quran establishes a single god who is sovereign over all (Surah 67). This god alone created everything (Surah 31:11), including life and death (Surah 67:2). The God of the Bible is also sovereign over all things and is the creator of the universe, however, death is a result of sin (Gen 2:17).  The god of the Quran forgives upon request, while the God of the Bible requires punishment for sins, a punishment that is absorbed at the cross.  The Quran holds that it is serving the same god that Abraham, Moses and Jesus served (Surah 42:13). However, there conception of God is not the same as that of the Christian. Therefore, while there are similarities in terms of both being sovereign, forgiving, creator deities, they perform these functions in different ways.
“The Quran’s Allah is equally majestic, equally omnipotent and provident, but he is also supremely transcendent; he walks not among humankind. His ninety-nine Quranic attributes—he is compassionate, the merciful—are pronounced, rehearsed, listed in the Quran, but they are rarely experienced there. The Bible is dramatic, expository, and descriptive; the Quran is hortatory and assertive; and their portraits of God differ accordingly.” (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location 214) 
            Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the Quran literature. Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary (Surah 3: 45-47). However, Jesus did not die on the cross (Surah 4: 157). Jesus was only a prophet like Muhammad. Jesus was the only one to be strengthened with the holy spirit (Surah 2:87, 5:110). Therefore, while they recognize that Jesus was a special prophet, being conceived by a virgin and filled with the holy spirit they miss the cross, which is a centerpiece to Christian teachings. The Quran also has a brief mention of the Holy Spirit as a strengthener of Muslims against the powers of Satan (Surah 16:98-102). Therefore, there is room to build upon the Muslim conception of the Holy Spirit and from there begin to push toward a more Trinitarian conception of God.
            The Quran establishes a religion that will affect every aspect of ones life. There are laws governing divorce (Surah 2: 227-232). There are dietary laws (Surah 5:1). There are laws governing inheritance (Surah 4:11). It sought to make religious one’s private and public lives. Violation of these laws had punishments in proportion to the crime, for instance, for unintentional killing of a believer then only compensation is due however, if he intentionally kills, he goes to hell (Surah 4: 92-93). Thieves are to have their hands cut off unless they repent and amends his conduct (Surah 5:38-39). All of this seems to illustrate that ones Islamic religion will have an impact on every aspect of their lives. While in Christianity, there are no laws in the New Testament governing things like divorce, diets, and inheritance, many of these things are present in the Old Testament. Christians likewise should be able to promote an equally complete system, as Christianity is not supposed to be a religion only practiced on Sundays.
            Perhaps the biggest problem with coming to terms with what is an orthodox position within Islam is that the Holy Books (i.e. Quran, Haddith and Sunnah) are not always consistent nor is each passage in the Haddith and Sunnah universally accepted. Supposedly, the later revelation that the Prophet Muhammad received was better revelation for the particular situation and time (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 44). This brings up the issue of what particular elements of the change in time made this new revelation appropriate as opposed to the old. When it comes to the Haddith, which is a collection of supposed sayings of the Prophet, it relies heavily on the line of transference of these sayings. Did the people claiming the Prophet had said these things, have access to the Prophet, were others able to verify these statements, does the line of transference of these statements have any holes in it. Deciding which Haddiths are inspired is particularly significant because many Muslims believe that Muhammad was the best commentator on the Quran. Therefore, his statements provide insights into interpreting the Quran. For the Muwahhidun, the first step in confirming a Haddith is to verify the line of transference and secondarily to insure that it is consistent with the Quran (Delong, Wahhabi Islam. Kindle Location 102-103).
            Perhaps the best asset one could have in a missionary context is to understand the history of the group. The Muwahhidun have their origins in the teachings of Muhammad Ibn abd al—Wahhab who lived from 1703 to 1793. He was born in Najb, Saudi Arabia. He studied the Quran and Hanbali texts under his father who was a judge and instructor of jurisprudence (Voll, "Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb, Muhammad," 4254-4255). Around the age of twenty, he studied in Mecca and Medina where he was attracted to Syrian Hambali scholarship. His teacher, Ibn Sayf, pointed him toward the works of jurist, Ibn Taymiyah. Ibn Taymiyah believed that Muslims could not live in lands ruled by infidels instead must abide in Shar’ia and fight apostates and unbelief (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 20). These beliefs would shape Wahhab, particularly after he would join Ibn Saud to achieve political power and Shar’ia.
             Ibn Abd al-Wahhab moved to Diriyya where he established an alliance with Saud. Saud pledged military support for Wahhab’s religious beliefs (Hashmi, Sohail H. "Abd Al-Wahhab, Muhammad Ibn (1703-1792)," 6)  The alliance was cemented by Ibn Saud's marriage to the daughter of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the beginning of frequent intermarriage between the two families that continues to the present”(Hashmi, "Wahhabiyya." 728).  Wahhab would spend the rest of his life teaching at the mosque in Diriyya and counseling Saud and, following Saud’s death, his son Aziz (Hashmi, Sohail H. "Abd Al-Wahhab, Muhammad Ibn (1703-1792)," 6). It is Saud and Aziz that would lay the foundations for the new Saudi Arabian kingdom. These two rulers banned music, tobacco, jewelry and other things deemed luxurious (Hoveyda, The Broken Crescent, 53). Under this kingdom, the Quran ruled, it was accompanied with the major tenants of the Muwahiddun’s “to revere God alone; to shun idols and man-made God substitutes; to pursue the original Muslim way of life with simplicity; and to command the good while forbidding evil” (Lacey, Inside the Kingdom, 11). The paper argues later that these tenants are contact points with the Christian religion. However, for now it is important to understand how these tenants affected and continue to have an affect on Saudi Arabian policy. The house of Saud funds “relief organizations, hospitals, publishing, books, magazines, schools, universities, scholarships, teachers, mosques and preachers abroad—but the only version of Islam propagated in Wahhabi or Wahhabi-like organizations” (Marshall, Islam at the Crossroads, 97). The maddrassas (Islamic schools) that Saudi Arabia established provide free Quran based education, for impoverished parents looking to further their children’s future. These schools are often the only option they have; even through they typically breed radical Islamists. While Christians cannot support the radical views that come out of these schools, however, the overall altruism and attempt to help the poor and needy is a point of contact. Christians could also have a place in educating children in these countries as well. In a sense, Christians would be combating the Muwahhidun by cutting off the supply.
The Muwahhidun movement is part of a much larger reform movement within eighteenth century, Islam. The overall reform movement was a response to “economic and socioeconomical decline, military defeats, and political divisions within the imperial sultanates (Ottoman, Safavid, and Mongul) and beyond” (Esposito, The Islamic Threat, 47-48). The reformers blamed the decline on Muslims not being faithful to Allah. During this time, Islam was not up against foreign challengers to which Wahhab would be addressing, nor was it very likely that Wahhab living in the depths of Arabia would have been aware of any threats. Rather he was addressing the need for internal reform within Islam. There “was something rotten in the state of Islam” (Jansen, Militant Islam, 87). This threat from within was bid’a (innovation) and a threat to tawhid (oneness of Allah), which was particularly seen in Saint and Muhammad worship practices that were developing.
            Tawhid is a definitive tenet throughout Islam. It primarily deals with the sovereignty of a single deity that is omnipotent and omniscient (Schubel, "Worship and Devotional Life: Muslim Worship," 9816). Therefore, there is a necessity to live in accordance with the will of this deity. Wahhab takes this a step further to declare that anyone who claims for themselves a characteristic of Allah is an apostate. For instance, because Allah has no associates anyone who attempts to play god is an apostate, or since Allah is lawmaker anyone who attempts to make their own law is an apostate (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 22). Wahhab saw those who worshipped Muhammad or the saints as committing the sin of shirk (polytheism), which is an unforgivable sin that excuses one from the community (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location 1321). Many Muwahhidun’s become iconoclastic in their aesthetics, calling anything with human representations as idolatry and polytheism (Esposito, Unholy War, 108). Actually, they would be apostate by their own rule. Because judgment is also an attribute of Allah, therefore by judging a fellow Muslim as a violator of shirk and taking justice into their own hands, they act in a way only appropriate for Allah.  There is however in this view a passion for insuring that Allah alone is god and has no associates. Christians also have a passion for the supremacy of God, with all other deities and objects of worship being idols. There is division among Christians on the issue of the use of icons in church, with many banning them completely. Many Protestants have concerns about the Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary among other saints. Therefore, Tawhid, with a proper understanding of the Triune God, could be a point of contact.
            Shar’ia law is another major tenant of Islam. Wahhab’s objective was to insure that the people are living under Allah’s law the Shar’ia, rather than human made law. The Shar’ia, as mentioned previously, affects all of ones life and in an evangelical setting has connections with Old Testament law. However, interpretation of Shar’ia is another key area where Wahhab differed from other Muslims.  He favored reopening the gates of ijtihad or independent rulings based in Shar’ia (Hashmi, "Abd Al-Wahhab, Muhammad Ibn (1703-1792)," 6). The gates of ijtihad closed around AD 900 (Peters, The Children of Abraham.  Kindle Location 1718). The problem for many reformers with the gates of ijtihad closing was that it gave the ulama control over the interpretation rather than allowing every individual to interpret the text (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 12). Therefore, this is similar to how the Protestant Reformers wanted to allow the average person the opportunity to interpret the text. In addressing the Muwahhidun, evangelists must allow them to interpret the scriptures that they see as inspired in the Christian cannon, rather than being like an ulama and interpreting it for them.
            Finally, Wahhab fought against bid’a (innovation). Muslims had added to what Muhammad and his immediate followers had envisioned. Wahhab was particularly against the addition of mysticism, saint worship, the orthodox school and the cult of Muhammad (Jansen, Militant Islam, 87). Wahhab believed the reason for the shortcomings that were occurring in Islam was due to the abandonment of the fundamentals of Islam. Therefore, the answer to all the problems was to return to a pure faith, as it existed during the time of Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs (Marshall, Islam and the Crossroads, 95). This movement is very similar to the ‘back to the sources’ movement during the Protestant Reformation. It therefore becomes important to look at the life and practices of the early leaders of Islam, Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Ulthman, and Ali, to see if there are other connections to Christianity.
            Muhammad was the final prophet for Muslims. He received a vision commanding him to recite the revelation in which he was hearing (Surah 53). He sought counsel from Jews and Christians who advised Muhammad that he had received the Torah (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location 718). Therefore, it would seem that Christians were influential in the life of Muhammad. However, such things should not be brought up by an evangelist, because, as a matter of dogma, Muslims hold that Muhammad’s revelation was only from Allah, making such suggestions offensive (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location 784). Mecca forced Muhammad to leave after he began promoting his new religion. Muhammad went to Medina, where he established a mujahidin that he used for military conquests, including the conquest of Mecca. However, Muhammad never selected a replacement before his death. Following his death, the umma began falling apart. The first caliph (successor to God’s messenger), Abu Bakr, in order to address the ridda (apostasy), used military force to bring the renegade groups back into Islam (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 50). The emphasis seen in Abu Bakr was on unity of the dar al Islam (House of Islam). As a connection, the unity of the church was also of major importance to the church up until the Reformation and even to this day in a bit different way. Christians addressing Muwahhidun therefore should promote a united front that shows ecclesiastical unity.
Umar, the next caliph, would forgive the rebels and incorporate them into his military campaigns (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 51).  Under Umar, the Muslim territories would expand at great speed. It is also important to note that the law forbade Arab soldiers to own land outside of Arabia. The law also sent one-fifth of the movable booty to Medina, where members of the umma split it (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 54). Some of the members of these military campaigns belonged to estranged Christian tribes from the Byzantine Empire; in particular, disgruntled Syrian and Egyptian Christians viewed the Arabs as liberators from the Byzantines that persecuted them for their views on Christological issues (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 52). The Pact of Umar established the dhimma a social status group with the people of Jerusalem in 638 (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location, 1377). This gave Religions of the Book freedom to worship in their own way. However, the pact did not allow dhimmi to proselytize, build new places of worship, rule over Muslims or own Muslim slaves and had to wear distinctive clothing. Jews and Christians in conquered lands did not rush to convert to Islam. Muslims were tolerant of Christians until the tenth century. This amount of religious toleration was not present in Christendom that did not have room for Jews, Muslims and Christians who disagreed with them (Peters, The Children of Abraham, Kindle Location 100). Christians therefore not only played a part in the military success of Muslim conquests, they also enjoyed freedom to worship in the way they wanted. The historical roots of Christianity and Umar’s Pact during a time of great success for Muslims provide precedent for Christians to exist and worship within Muslim grounds. This goes against the some factions of Muwahhidun that want to kill Christians.
Umar appointed a shura (electoral committee) to select the next caliph Uthman. Uthman, established the authoritative translation of the Quran and burned all other translations (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 55). He also amassed estates worth over a hundred million while he was caliph. However, he fell out of popularity and was killed. His replacement was Ali, who was the last of the Rashidun (rightly guided caliphs). Ali had previously advised the former caliphs on policy and dogma. (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 56-57).  He was a pious and generous man. However, his term was full of strife; the Battle of Camel established a precedent of Muslim armies fighting each other. Uthman’s cousin, Mu’awiya rose up against Ali and when he decided to negotiate with them, his own men, the Kharijites (secedes), turned against him for agreeing to the arbitration. A Kharijite would later kill Ali. Therefore, the final two caliphs faced internal problems and it seemed that the umma was in trouble. It was Mu’awiya who would save the umma through his policy of limited violence “I never use my sword when my whip will do, nor my whip when my tongue will do. Let a single hair bind me to my people, and I will not let it snap; when they pull I loosen, and if they loosen I pull.” (Goldschmidt, A Concise History of the Middle East, 58).  This indicates that the Rashidun were not perfect. The romanticized view of the Rashidun held by the Muwahhidun is exaggerated. Nevertheless, there are certain parts of the history of the Rashidun that Christians could draw upon to illustrate the permissiveness of Christianity held early in Islam’s history. Particularly in the later caliphs, sin seems to be a major feature. However, beyond that, God was able to work through these sins in Mu’awiya who tried to limit the amount of violence he used to maintain the umma.
            The verdict is still out on whether the Muwahhidun movement is responsible for the current extremist of groups like al-Qaeda and others or if it is only Saudi Arabia’s ultraconservative flavor of Islam. Some have argued that Wahhab’s model appealed to other Islamic reform movements including the Salafiyya movement in the nineteenth century and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Namani, "Muwahhidun," 1626). Others would argue that the Muwahhidun tend to be religiously and politically conservative but not revolutionary (Esposito, Unholy War, 111). This section will use the term “jihadist” to describe the religious fundamentalists that push for warfare and “Muwahhidun” for the conservative branch of Islam found in Saudi Arabia.
            First, do the Muwahhidun’s roots point toward violence? The source used in this section does have a bias toward the Muwahhidun and Saudi Arabia, which bears mentioning. The author, Natana J Delong, used in this section only referenced sources that were favorable to Wahhab. Delong argued that Wahhab’s insistence on adherence to the values found in the Quran means he placed a high emphasis on the preservation of human life, even during holy war, has toleration of other religions and balanced rights between the genders thereby making it different from jihadists (Delong, Wahhabi Islam, Kindle Location 45). Wahhab believed in the equality of all Muslims, was devoted to social justice issues including the protection of women and the poor. He did not tolerate corruption, bribery and hypocrisy. He was not a pacifist or a warmonger and saw violence as something that stood in the way of the goal to convert people to Islam (Delong, Wahhabi Islam, Kindle Location 220).  While he did tear down trees that Muslims worshipped to, as well as monuments to saints, this was in the interest of turning Muslims away from worshipping these things to Allah alone. Wahhab sought to empower Muslims with the religious texts, taking it out of the hands of the ulama.  This position does tend to downplay the role of the maddrassas that educated many of the Mujahidin that fought in the Afghan conflict, some of which would go on to form the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did exile Bin Laden, thereby showing its concerns over the movement. Nevertheless, if any of Delong’s argument is true, than the Muwahhidun have even more in common with Christians. This would include a concern for the rights of women and the poor, a concern for justice through the removal of corruption and bribery, and the equality of humanity as imago dei.
            Wahhabs thinking has had an influence on key reforming figures in Egypt including Rashid Rida, Hassan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. This is why many see Wahhab’s thought as jihadist. However, this is not necessarily the most logical connection to make, as by the same logic, the anti-Semitism present in the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, would influence Hitler, but this does not mean that what Luther had in mind in his anti-Semitic passages was what Hitler did during the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the Muwahhidun had their beliefs and name hijacked by jihadist groups that claim influences from Abd al-Wahhab. This means that connections between Christians and Muwahhidun cannot just stop at Wahhab but must extend to jihadists. What connections could Christianity have with Rida, Al-Banna, Qutb, and Bin Laden?
            Rashid Rida was born in al-Qalamun to a family that claims to have descended from the Prophet (Ryad, Islamic Reformation and Christianity, 3-9). In 1987, he went to Egypt where he worked as a journalist for Al-Manar. Following the death of his teacher, Abduh, he worked on finishing Abduh’s Quran commentary. Rida lived in a time following the World War when the caliphate was dissolving, Christian missionaries were coming in and Islam was struggling with many internal issues. In 1908, he traveled to Syria to promote a unity between the Arabs and the Turks but by 1910, he had lost faith in the Turks. Rida was attracted to Wahhabism because of its call for a pristine Islam with rejection of sainthood and superstition. Rida’s call was that true believers cannot act like the infidels, while there is some freedom in Islam to change the goal cannot to become like the unbelievers (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 27-29). Muslims must still defend non-Muslims in their lands, drawing upon the precedent set by Umar who went so far as to excuse the dhimmi who fought with him from the head tax (Donohue, Islam in Transition, 43). He tried to reform Islam through promoting the development of a moderate Islamic group called ‘Islamic progressive party,’ to promote changes while preserving the moral basis of the community (Jansen, Militant Islam, 94). Overall, it would seem Rida’s views were not real extreme. His insistence on bringing Muslims together as a differentiated people that protects those with differing beliefs is common ground with Christians. Christians are supposed to be a unified body in Christ, that do not follow the pattern of the world but are transformed (Romans 12:2), and are willing to help those that are different from us.
Wahhab and Rida had an impact on Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was born in Mahmudiyya, Egypt (Hashmi, "Banna, Hasan Al- (1906–1949)." 104-105). While away at school, he became aware of the constant bombardment of foreigners and concluded the only way to combat it was through the awakening of the Islamic conscience. This led him to form the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood at its origins did not engage in political life but instead concerned themselves with educating and assisting the poor (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 27-42). Al-Banna did see the west as an intellectual and physical threat and therefore called believers to jihad against this unbelief, driving the unbelievers from Muslim lands and pursuing them into their own, not necessarily to kill them but to bring them to the truth. Therefore, it would seem at its base Al-Banna is about enhancing Muslim consciousness through good works and evangelism to unbelievers. Therefore, at this level there could be some connection points for Christians who have a passion for social justice and evangelism.
Sayyid Qutb broke from the Muslim Brotherhood because he believed the only way in which the Muslim Brotherhood was going to accomplish its purpose of getting rid of the infidels was through violence (Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, 35-42). Qutb included Muslims not following Shar’ia as susceptible to a declaration of jihad. It is therefore in Qutb that one sees the most resemblance to the position taken by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. On this level of insistence of physical violence to achieve ends, there are few connections with Christianity. One could argue Christians are involved in a spiritual jihad with the forces of Satan, but this would be dangerous as many see Satan as the United States. At the very least when it comes to suicide bombings it is helping them to see that salvation is not through martyrdom but through the martyred one, Jesus. Perhaps a resource in this is the Haddith (2.445-6, 5.515, 8.604) and the Quran (Surah 4: 29-30) which both condemn suicide as a crime punishable by Hell fire.
Finally, the most recent jihadist contributor was Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden called for specific reform in his letter to the Americans (Lawrence, Messages to the World, 160-172). He called Americans to convert to Islam, which he saw as the only true religion.  He called Americans to live moral and upright lives. This means ending the separation between church and state and implementing God’s law, the Shar’ia. He called America to end usury in the economy. He called Americans to stop using drugs and other intoxicants. He called America to practice sexual purity noting President Clinton’s repeated lapses on this account. He called America to end gambling in all of its forms including Wall Street investment. He called America to stop exploiting women in the media and other mediums. He called America to end sex trades, including prostitution and pornography. He called America to step up its efforts to protect the environment and stop caving in to companies that pollute. He called Americans to end the hypocrisy that they see in American foreign policy. He argued that while West says it stands up for democracy, it has placed tyrants in charge of the Middle East and fought against the rise of democracy in Algeria. He argued that America has a double standard as to who gets Weapons of Mass Destruction, when in fact the only ones to use them is the United States. He argued that America has broken many international laws and treaties including at Guantanamo Bay and committed several war crimes in Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides conversion to Islam, these demands are common concerns for Christians. Christians, like Bin Laden are greatly troubled at the loss of family values and morality in the United States. Christians, along with Muslims have been called to be stewards of what we have been given which includes the environment and our neighbors. While perhaps it is a bit idealistic of him to expect the United States to be perfect in its morality, his criticisms should certainly hit a cord with Christians. Going to the extreme of using violence particularly against noncombatants is horrendous. However, at the same time, how else was he supposed to wake the United States up to the atrocities in which the United States was perpetrating against the Middle East through its foreign policy? It was the last resort following the failure to create change through boycott or attacks on United States embassies and the USS Cole. Whoever might provide the theological justification for Bin Laden’s attack is less relevant than the common concern \ shared between Christians and Muslims to promote morality and justice for the oppressed Arabs at the hands of Israel and the West. It is time Christians start caring more about what their government is doing in foreign affairs and striving to correct the wrongs done by that government.
In conclusion, the Muwahhidun at its base had a vision of cleansing Islam from its idolatrous acts of saint worship and return to the time of the Rashidun. Overall, many Muslims could appreciate the admirable goals that the Muwahhidun established. However, Wahhab’s name soon tarnished when jihadist groups identified with Wahhab. Nevertheless, except in its most radical form there are connection points with Christianity. Prominent connections between the Muwahidun and Christians include morality, justice for the poor, differentiation of the people of God, and worshipping God alone. Obviously, this is only a cursory glance at a topic that there is not a whole lot of information about, particularly of the religious aspects of the Muwahhidun. The vote is still out on whether the Muwahhidun are necessarily jihadist or if the jihadists are just a radical sect that claims Wahhadi roots. Either way, the call for Christians is not to be a fearful people. Instead the call is to pray for those who persecute them. It is only through an act of God that conversion is possible; the role of the Christian is simply to sow the seeds.



Bibliography
Abram, Simon. Islamic Hadith. Kindle Edition. 2011.
Allah; God; Muhammed; Mohammed; Ali CBE, Hafiz Abdullah Yusuf. The Kindle Qur'an | Kindle Koran | Kindle Quran | Kindle Al-Qur'an (Definitive English Edition) Complete and Unabridged With Full Color Reproductions of ... Moslem | Qur'an | Koran | Quran | Al-Qur'an) Kindle Edition: Islamic Studies Press. 2010.
Donohue, John J and John Esposito. Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 2007.
Esposito, John, The Islamic Threat? Myth or Reality: Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999.
Esposito, John. Unholy War, Terror in the Name of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press.2002.
Goldschmidt, Arthur Jr.. A Concise History of the Middle East. Colorado: Westview Press. 2010.
Habeck, Mary. Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror. Connecticut: Yale University Press. 2007.
Hashmi, Sohail H. "Abd Al-Wahhab, Muhammad Ibn (1703-1792)." Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 6. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 22 Mar. 2012.
Hashmi, Sohail H. "Banna, Hasan Al- (1906–1949)." Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 104-105. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Mar. 2012.
Hashmi, Sohail H. "Wahhabiyya." Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 727-729. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Hoveyda, Fereydoun. The Broken Crescent: The Threat of Militant Islamic Fundamentalism. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. 2002.
Jansen, GH. Militant Islam. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc. 1979.
Lawrence, Bruce. Messages to the World, The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. New York: Verso. 2005.
Marshall, Paul, Islam at the Crossroads: Understanding Its Beliefs History and Conflicts. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Books. 2002.
Namani, Bassam. "Muwahhidun." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 1625-1627. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.
Natana J Delong, Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad. New York: L.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. 2007.
Ryad, Umar. Islamic Reformism and Christianity: A Critical Reading of the Works of Muhammad Rashid Rida and His Associates (1898-1935). Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. 2009.
Schubel, Vernon James. "Worship and Devotional Life: Muslim Worship." Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. Vol. 14. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 9815-9820. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Voll, John O. "Ibn Abd al-Wahhāb, Muhammad." Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 4254-4255. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 22 Mar. 2012.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Homily Against the Christian Zionists: John Chrysostoms Response to the Christian Zionist Movement

The Christian Zionist movement argues that the state of Israel established in 1948 is the fulfillment of end-times-prophecy. This supposedly removes the moral responsibility that Israel bears for the genocide of the Palestinians resulting in 3.6 million refugees as of 2003.[1] Christian Zionism is a dramatic shift from the anti-Judaism of early Christian teachings as embodied in John Chrysostom’s Eight Homilies Against the Jews. This paper uses the term “anti-Judaism” as opposed to “anti-Semitism” because the hatred in antiquity had nothing to do with race or economics as it would in twentieth-century Europe.[2] This paper will try to look beyond this blatant racism, focusing instead on the theological arguments imbedded within his sermons. It will then explore how his theological arguments address the Zionism movement. Ultimately, it will seek to find a middle ground between the extremes of anti-Judaism and Zionism.
            Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists have been some of the biggest proponents of Christian Zionism. They believe that there are certain ‘signs of the times’ that indicate that the apocalypse is fast approaching.  One of these signs was the nation of Israel was born in a day (Isaiah 66:8). Signaling for many dispensationalists that the full number of the gentiles has been established such that all of Israel might now be saved (Romans 11:25-26).
            The founder of Christians United for Israel, John Hagee, has been particularly active in the movement. Hagee argues nations that bless the current state of Israel, God will bless, and nations that curse the current state of Israel, God curses. This interpretation of Genesis 12:3 calls for a no questions asked support for the state of Israel, for participation in war with Israel’s enemies and not forcing Israel to give up any land or compromise in any way. Hagee claims he does not have a ‘“dual-covenant theology’[3] rather he holds salvation comes through Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, in his view Jews are still the brothers of Christ, Jesus’ flesh and blood, that Christians must care for based on Hagee’s interpretation of Matthew 25:40.[4] Hagee’s proposal requires that Christians turn their backs on the eight percent of Palestinians that are Christians, about 125,000 of which are still in Palestine.[5]  
            These open embraces of Jews would be unthinkable for Christians throughout the second to at least the sixteenth century. Many historians see the split between Jews and Christians happening in AD 70 with Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Christians remembered Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24:16 and fled to the mountains. This flight to the mountains created a separation that became permanent. The divide between the two groups would widen after Christians would not fight with the Jews against the Romans in AD 66-73 and 132-135.[6] This carried over into the thinking of many Christians. Although unaccepted by the church, Marcion (circa 144), went to the extreme of wanting to eliminate the Old Testament and all New Testament references back, illustrating some of the anti-Judaic teaching.[7] Some of the major figures within the church began to denounce the Jews.[8] Justin Martyr (AD 160) in an argument with Jews said ‘The Scriptures are not yours, but ours.’  Ireneaus, Bishop of Lyon (AD 177), declared, ‘Jews are disinherited from the grace of God.” Tertullian (AD 160-230), in his treatise “Against the Jews,” announced that God had rejected the Jews in favor of Christianity. Later, Eusebius (early 4th C) would argue the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures were for Christians and not Jews; however, the Jews reserved the curses for themselves. He argued that the church was the continuation of the Old Testament and hence superseded Judaism. Jews were like the cursed and barren fig tree never to bear fruit again (Mat 21:18-21).
            These attitudes soon began to influence the policies of the church before and after Chrysostom.

Year
Council
Decision
c.300
Council in Elvira[9]
1) Christians prohibited from sharing feast with Jews
2) Christians cannot use Jews to bless their fields
306
Synod of Elvira[10]
1) Jews and Christians were not permitted to eat together
2) prohibition of intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Christians and Jews
313
Edict of Milan[11]
Outlawed synagogues
325
Council of Nicaea[12]
1)Enacted a series of restrictive edicts against the Jews with the purpose of keeping Gentiles and Jews from worshipping together
2) Easter was never to be celebrated on the same day as the Jewish Passover.
341
Council of Antioch[13]
Forbid Christians from eating Passover with Jews
360
Council of Laodicea[14]
Forbids resting on the Sabbath rather than on the Lord’s day
535
Synod of Clermont[15]
Jews were not allowed to hold public office
538
Third Synod of Orleans[16]
Jews not allowed to employ Christian servants or possess Christian slaves


Written in the fourth century, the Apostolic Constitutions[17]  bears particular importance because of its close proximity to Antioch. The Apostolic Constitutions was a collection of ecclesiastical canons and prayers, some of which derive from the synagogue. The Apostolic Constitutions forbid Christians from entering the synagogues of the Jews. It also urged Christians to avoid the Jewish festivals. The Apostolic Constitutions warned Christians against participation in the Jewish ritual baths. The Apostolic Constitution went so far as to excommunicate a bishop or other cleric who fasts or feasts with the Jews and called for purification of lay people who acted in these ways. All of these policies go to show the extent to which the church hierarchy went to keep Christians away from Jews.  
It is out of this anti-Judaic church hierarchical culture in which John Chrysostom (AD 345-407) would begin to preach against the Judaizers, who worshipped with the ‘Christ killing’ Jews. These sermons would be influential for centuries. They target primarily the Judaizers or those who tried to walk the line between being Judaism and Christianity by attending worship services at the synagogue and honoring Jewish festivals. Those that followed this path threatened to divide the church because they were going against the church fathers. Wilken’s argues the church was struggling to promote a united front, particularly in Antioch. The fact that Christians would participate in Jewish worship but Jews would not participate in Christian worship gave evidence for the truth of Judaism over Christianity.[18]
“What, then, are the questions? I will ask each one who is sick with this disease: Are you a Christian? Why, then, this zeal for Jewish practices? Are you a Jew? Why then, are you making trouble for the Church? Does not a Persian side with the Persians? Is not a barbarian eager for what concerns the barbarians? Will a man who lives in the Roman Empire not follow our laws and way of life? Tell me this. If ever anyone living among us is caught in collusion siding with the barbarians, is he not immediately punished? He is given neither hearing nor examination, even if he has ten thousand arguments in his own defense. If ever anyone living among the barbarians is clearly following Roman customs and law, again, will he not suffer the same punishment? How, then, do you expect to be saved by defecting to that unlawful way of life?”[19]
Chrysostom was a Presbyter at Antioch when he delivered eight sermons against the Judaizers. The Antioch church was in a conflict with the Arian party. The congregation pressured Chrysostom into speaking on the Arian issue. However, the issue of the Jewish festivals being at hand and some of the “brothers” falling into the ways of the Jews took priority over those sermons.[20] Chrysostom considered the Arians outside of the church but the Judaizers as within the church. Therefore, he urged his congregation to rebuke those that attend Jewish festivals or worship services but not to tell anyone lest the disgrace of it fall upon the church.[21]
Another influence for the sermons was Julian the Apostate’s quest to rebuild the Jewish temple and restore the Jews to Jerusalem to sacrifice. Even though Julian had been dead for over twenty-five years, this threat still circulated.[22] This was not just a verbal attack on Christians; it was a historic attack on the church’s teachings. The church had long held that it was the fulfiller of the Old Testament prophecies. Julian’s policy posed a threat to this claim, but Julian’s attempt was unsuccessful. John Chrysostom assured his followers in these sermons that restoration of the temple and Jerusalem to the Jews would not happen until the last days and therefore the church is the rightful heir.[23]
Our current times allow freedom of marriage between religions. Christians are free to hire Jews and Jews free to hire Christians under the law. Jews are free to worship and build synagogues without any objection from Christians. The date of Easter has for the most part been set following the lunar calendar. Nevertheless, the modern day Judaizers still seek to balance their Christian commitments with their Jewish leanings often times favoring the Jewish state of Israel over the Palestinian Christians. The modern day Judaizers have caused conflict in the church, particularly between the Arab church and the Western church with their support for the Jewish state. They have turned away from the traditional division between Christians and Jews that dominated the church from AD 70 through the Reformation.   In 1948, the establishment of state of Israel made reality what was at the time of Chrysostom a threat posed by Julian the Apostate. The current Zionist movement sees the creation of the Israeli state as fulfillment of prophecy.
             Chrysostom’s replacement theology centers around two principles: the priority of the order of Melchizedek over Levi, and the destruction of temple along with sacrifice as prophesied for their unforgivable sin of killing Christ. It is because the church has replaced Judaism as the people of God that the Judaizers must make their choice between the church and the synagogue.
            Chrysostom’s replacement theology has a heavy emphasis on the priesthood of Melchizedek being superior to that of Levi’s. His primary example is that Abraham, Levi’s great grandfather, gave tithes to Melchizedek. For Chrysostom this illustrated that Melchizedek’s priesthood was superior to the Jewish priesthood.[24] Chrysostom saw Melchizedek as a Christ like figure because he was both priest and king of the Most High God.[25] Levi though his line received tithes was subject to tithes through Abraham.[26] Therefore, for Chrysostom, when the Psalmist agues, “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand’ (Ps 110:1), this signals a prophesied transition from the priesthood of Aaron to the priesthood of another, Melchizedek.[27] Jesus being identified with the order of Melchizedek (Hebrew 5-7), thereby becomes that replacement order which is superior to the priesthood of Aaron/ Levi.
            This new order made sacrifice and the temple unnecessary, hence they were destroyed and never to be restored. Chrysostom saw this in Jesus prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem[28] and in his prophecy to the Samaritan woman regarding the end of worship in Jerusalem.[29] Even following the Jews previous return to the land and rebuilding of the temple, Malachi predicted the coming of the present desolation and the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices.[30] The sheer amount of time that had passed without Israel restoration, at that time nearly three centuries, without the Jews ever returning, also spoke to the truth of Jesus prophecy.  The Jewish age was therefore over. Jews could no longer make sacrifices because God confined sacrifices to the Jerusalem temple. Without the temple in Jerusalem, their sacrifices were just murders.[31]
God forgave the Jews for many sins and returned them to the land in the past. The Jews ancestors worshipped idols, sacrificed their children, killed the prophets among numerous other dreadful deeds. For any of these sins God would have been justified in leaving them in endless captivity. However, they were eventually able to return to the land after a specific prophesied period.  Chrysostom saw this time as different because they committed the worst sin imaginable, killing the Son of God. It is because they killed Christ that Jews lost their land and election.[32] The Jews were Christ-killers who wanted to live according to God’s previous will under the law and not His current will to live in grace. 
            The Judaizers therefore have a choice, they can live captive to the law and the Jewish way of life or they can live in the freedom of grace under the new priesthood. For Chrysostom it was entirely one or the other, because by following one law, like circumcision, one subjects oneself to the burden of the whole law. If one chooses this path and cannot fulfill the whole law, they draw a curse upon themselves.[33]  Instead, Chrysostom advocates that Christ has declared us just.[34] This justification come not from deeds but grace alone. The justice of God became manifest independent of the law through faith in Christ. Christ becomes no advantage to a person when one takes upon the law.[35] Some Judaizers argued that the Jews too have the scriptures thereby making it permissible to attend the synagogue service and festivals. Chrysostom quickly dismisses this argument, arguing that even Satan can speak the scriptures but this does not make him holy.[36] 
It is important to remember that Chrysostom lived during a particularly anti-Judaic period in the church. Additionally, if one presumes that Wilken’s premise that the motivation behind the sermons is to promote church unity, Chrysostom’s argument could be justifiable. Certainly, his hermeneutics could use some work, particularly surrounding the issue of whether the Jews were responsible for Christ’s death. Nevertheless, it does illustrate an interesting dynamic that has occurred, really since World War II, where a once heavily anti-Semitic church began fighting for Jewish rights. During a time when Europeans, particularly the Germans, marginalized and oppressed the Jews, perhaps such a stance would have been justifiable. However, has this movement gone too far? 
            Both extremes of Zionism and anti-Judaism are unappealing. Therefore, it would seem there is a need for a middle ground, a golden mean, between the extreme anti-Judaism of Chrysostom and the current day Christian Zionist movement. An approach that affirms that Christian are called to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, affirm that Israel has a duty to care for the Palestinians, does not associate criticism of Israel with anti-Judaism and better defines who are the children of Abraham, the true Israel.
First, Christians have been called and sent to stand up for the marginalized and oppressed in the world. Contrary to the hermeneutic employed by John Hagee on Mathew 25:40,[37] Jesus is not just talking about ethnic Jews when He calls his followers to care for his brothers and sisters. Even if we grant that Christian concern should somehow be limited to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, are Christians not part of Christ’s family by faith? The church must stand in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Christ in Palestine, who suffer oppression from the Jewish state of Israel. Chrysostom would rightly criticize the Christian Zionists war against the Palestinian Church as a form of treason. 
            Second, if Israel wants to make a historic and religious claim to the land they must live in accordance with the law. [38] Aliens and sojourners were given religious privileges including Sabbath rest (Ex 23:12), participation in the festivals (Numb 9:14) excluding Passover without circumcision (Ex. 12:48), could make sacrifice (Numb 15:14) and had access to the holist ceremonies without restriction (Josh 8:33). Socially, Israelites were commanded not to harvest the outside of their fields in order that the alien could take freely (Lev. 19:10; 23:27; Deut 24:19-21), when tithes were collected the income was distributed to aliens (Deut 14:29; 26:12) and prevented anyone including the alien from falling into permanent slavery (Lev. 25:47-50). Legally, aliens could escape to the cities of refuge without restriction (Numb 35:15; Josh 20:9), had to be given a fair wage (Deut. 24:14), could not be discriminated against (Lev 19:33-34), had a right to the court system (Deut 1:16; 24:17; 27:19) and every law had to apply to everyone, alien and Jew (Lev. 24:22; Num 9:14; 15:16, 29).  In these ways, Israel’s calling was to be a blessing to the nations. Israel’s current treatment of the Palestinians goes against these laws and principles. When Israel failed to keep God’s law, God kicked them out of His land that He called to steward. Chrysostom would agree that one does not get to select which laws one wants to follow.
            Third, with many of these Zionist movements if anyone says anything remotely negative about Israel and its treatment of its neighbors they classify such things as anti-Semitic. Therefore, because they have cursed Israel they will bring curses upon themselves. This position tends to have many problems with it; primarily it would make the prophets and New Testament writers anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic for some of their remarks.  Isaiah devotes many chapters to chastising the people of Israel for their sins. The John the Revelator calls the Jews a Synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9). In the gospel of John, Jesus says the religious leaders father is not Abraham but the devil (John 8:44). Voicing criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Therefore, one must really hesitate before dismissing people, even Chrysostom, for seemingly anti-Judaic remarks. This by no means excuses the many centuries of anti-Judaism in the church.
            Finally, not all of Abraham’s descendents are true children of Abraham. God chose Isaac over Ishmael to carry on the line of the promise. Likewise, God chose Jacob over Esau, illustrating that even at the beginning Abraham’s descendents were spiritual descendents that inherit the blessings. Chrysostom’s replacement theology attempts to illustrate this through its argument that the church is the continuation of Israel and not just a remnant of Israel. While Chrysostom would agree that Jews will only return to the land in the last days, similar to the dispensationalists. This does not somehow mean that the Levite’s priesthood has become reinstated, or somehow overtaken the priesthood of Christ. Chrysostom would argue that one has a choice, either one must completely follow the law or one must embrace the grace of Christ.
 The centuries surrounding Chrysostom, to a modern audience, appears oppressive and hostile towards the Jews in particular. These centuries of Christians were intolerant and derogatory toward the Jews.  Enter into the twenty-first century and Christian Zionists and Jews are like two peas in a pod. Chrysostom would seem to have concerns about the Zionist movement. Zionists like the Judaizers threaten the unity of the church through its opposition of the Palestinians. Zionists like the Judaizers seem to see the Jewish road to salvation as valid and thereby show support for them. There are some stark contrasts between the Judaizers and the Zionists in terms of religious and festival observance. Nevertheless, Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews despite its racism provides a much needed critique of a growing Zionist movement.


[1] Burge, Gary M.. Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians. (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press. 2003), 44
[2] Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1989), 91.
[3] Hagee, John. In Defense Of Israel, Revised: The Bible's mandate for supporting the Jewish State (Strang Communications. Kindle Edition. 12-05-2011), Kindle Location 2445.
[4] Hagee, John, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate For Supporting the Jewish State. (Florida: Charisma House Book Group. 2007), 6-7
[5] Burge, 191
[6] Wilson, 88
[7] Wilson, 96
[8] Hagee, John  Location 2445-46 Citing:
Clarence Wagner, “The Error of Replacement Theology,” http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1914
[9] Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. (New York: Oxford University Press. 1983), 132-33.
[10] Hagee, 30
[11] Hagee, Location 1740-1741
[12] Wilken, Robert L. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century. (California: University of California Press. 1983), 76
[13] Gager, 132
[14] Gager, 132
[15] Hagee, 30
[16] Hagee, 30
[17] Wilkens, 72-75
[18] Wilken 160
[19] Chrysostom, St John. Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews. (Unknown. Kindle Edition. 04-02-2010), Kindle Location 1008-14
[20] Wilken, 34-35
[21] Chrysostom,  Location 2378-2379
[22] Wilken, 158-160
[23] Chrysostom, Location 1988, 2020.
[24] Chrysostom, Location 2141-42
[25] Chrysostom, Location 2116-18
[26] Chrysostom, Location 2156-59
[27] Chrysostom, Location 2122-26
[28] Chrysostom, Location 1218-22
[29] Chrysostom, Location 1674-76
[30] Chrysostom, Location 1644-46
[31] Chrysostom, Location 583-86
[32] Chrysostom, Location 1750-55
[33] Chrysostom, Location 422-24
[34] Chrysostom, Location 2057-60
[35] Chrysostom, Location 390-92
[36] Chrysostom, Location 1915-17
[37] Hagee, 6-7
[38] Burge 89-90