Is Allah of Ramadan the Same as God of Christmas?

In Arabic and in Indonesian both Christians and Muslims use the same name, Allah, for God. Both Christians and Muslims desire to worship the one and only true God. However, unless God’s character is irrelevant, then the Gods that they worship must be different.

The prevailing myth that all Gods and religions are essentially the same prevents people from recognizing behavioral differences arising from different belief systems. That thinking error helps explain why popular culture overlooks mistreatment of women and religious minorities in Muslim majority countries. It also explains why popular media won’t report differences in how fundamentalist communities respond to insults. As a result, Evangelical Christians in America become more stigmatized and less free as fundamentalist Muslim violence spreads, because Christianity and Islam must be the same in the minds of most Americans.

Here are two examples of differences between the Judeo-Christian and Muslim Gods:

Example 1: God as trinity or singularity

The Judeo-Christian God is three persons in one essence, while the Muslim God is a single autonomous entity. The Judeo-Christian God follows standards for interpersonal love and accountability as part of his essence in eternity, because he is a trinity. However, morality in relationships is not an essential trait of the Muslim God because relationships do not exist within a singularity.

In chapter one of He Is There and He Is Not Silent Francis Schaefer writes,

Without the high order of personal unity and diversity as given in the Trinity, there are no answers…. The Persons of the Trinity communicated with each other and loved each other before the creation of the world…. This is not only an answer to the acute philosophic need of unity in diversity, but of personal unity and diversity. The unity and diversity cannot exist before God or be behind God, because whatever is farthest back is God. But with the doctrine of the Trinity, the unity and diversity is God Himself — three Persons, yet one God. That is what the Trinity is, and nothing less than this.

Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God is law-abiding in eternal essence, but the Muslim God has no basis for law and order before creation. Consequently, according to the Qur’an, Allah is the best deceiver. But according to the Bible, God may not lie.

Example 2: God’s image in man or nowhere

The Judeo-Christian God created men and women in his own image and incarnates himself in flesh and blood to restore relationship between God and man. The Muslim God has no likeness and may not be likened to anything in creation. He most certainly did not become flesh and blood. If both men and women are in God’s image, then both men and women are equally sacred, and all people are equal before God (including non-Jews and non-Christians). In Judaism and Christianity, sanctity and equality flow from partaking in God’s image. However, in Islam, human worth flows from the way that God created and fated men and women. Men and women do not participate in God’s likeness, and God does not put his likeness into men and women. Consequently, men and women are not equal before the law in Islam. Neither are Muslims and non-Muslims.

Influence of God’s perceived character in society

People become like what they worship, so character differences between Gods influence social relationships. Furthermore, ignoring the differences insults the people for whom God’s character is important. Differences between God in the Bible and God in the Qur’an result in behavioral differences in faith communities. For example, in most Muslim societies women are less respected than men, and Jews are the least respected minority.

Opposite perceptions of God’s opposite

The Bible does describe a spirit that is deceptive, hungry for exclusive worship, and unaccountable, but it is not God. The Qur’an describes a spirit that fabricates stories about Jesus in order to divert people from the “path of God.” For insight on the identity of the spirit in the Bible that oppresses women and hates Jews, see Genesis 3:14-15 and Revelation 12:13. For insight on the identity of the spirit in the Qur’an that leads people astray and into false beliefs about prophets like Jesus, see Surah 6 verse 112 and Surah 19 verse 83.

Follow-up Q & A:

If Jews don’t worship a trinity, then how can a triune God be Judeo-Christian?

Special revelation is progressive, so the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures can be revealed to be triune. Thus the trinity can be “Judeo-Christian” without being specified as such in either ancient or modern Judaism.

Does this logic mean that Jews and Christians do not worship the same God?

If intentions determine the object of worship then Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God. But intentions are only part of worshiping in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24). Without perfect truth, there is a bit of idolatry in all of us. Jesus is the only one who perfectly knows, worships, and reveals God. We know and follow God by knowing and following Jesus. He alone completely manifests God’s behavior, knowledge, and character (John 14:6).

Apologizing for Qur’an Burning Fans Flames

Apologizing for accidentally burning Qur’ans in Afghanistan was a huge mistake. It’s like a doctor apologizing for accidentally sewing his scissors into a patient after removing an appendix.

In law, and in Islam, forgiveness follows restitution. Apologizing admits responsibility. That admission makes settlement more expensive. Not only are people going to “pay” for this accident, but also people will “pay” more because of the apology.

Naveed Qamar, the head of Jamaat-ud-Dawah in Karachi, Pakistan said, “We don’t accept Obama’s apology. The Muslims don’t accept his apology, as it is nothing but a farce.” Without restitution, it is a farce; and the more sincere the apology, the greater the price of restitution.

In America’s Judeo-Christian system, refusing a sincere apology is poor form, and so is meeting injustice with random violence. However, in Sharia systems, justice flows from balance. When salvation depends upon good deeds outweighing bad deeds (as in Islam), then justice depends on bad deeds and good deeds balancing between people too. People in Sharia systems restore balance by making and taking restitution, not by making and taking penance. In this case, random violence balances the offense and helps restore justice.

The Muslim and Judeo-Christian “dwellings” have different “house rules” for reconciliation. Americans cannot import Judeo-Christian “house rules” into Muslim “dwellings.”

Patterns for reconciliation among Muslims do not involve taking responsibility and then apologizing. Rather those patterns involve blaming either circumstances or God (“It was God’s will”) and then asking for forgiveness.

In this particular situation, I understand that the Qur’ans were put in the trash because detainees had “desecrated” them by writing messages to each other in them. I would advise the President and his generals to say, “This is not our fault. Some detainees were desecrating Qur’ans by writing messages in them, and it is God’s will that they have now been exposed in this way. Please forgive us.”

Related Commentary:
Cultural Differences in Apologizing
Functional Differences between Holy Books

Biblical Rationale for Delayed Apology

Offending people is not automatically a sin or a crime, but offenses do undermine relationships that should often be restored.

The Biblical pattern for mending relationships begins with forgiveness, not apology (see: Mt. 6:14-15, 18:35, Lk. 23:34, Ro. 5:8, 1Jo. 4:19). Biblical reconciliation is a two-way street. It takes forgiveness and repentance. Salvation is our model. God initiates with grace, and saving relationship ensues when people repent. Reconciliation between people cannot happen without both forgiveness and repentance.

It is important to note that forgiveness does not equal relationship. Forgiveness simply abandons the right to justice. It does not mean canceling natural consequences, and it does not abandon self-protection. Fighting consequences and becoming vulnerable depend on relationship, not forgiveness. I see no Biblical requirement (though it’s permitted) to apologize for actions that are perfectly moral, and I see no Biblical requirement to apologize for anything without hope of forgiveness.

The patterns for reconciling are different between Muslim and Judeo-Christian cultures. In the Muslim culture, apologizing not only admits guilt, it also submits to punishment. The Muslim priority is justice over reconciliation. But the Biblical priority is reconciliation over justice. In a Muslim context, the Christian world-view will seek forgiveness before apologizing, and then apologize in the context of relationship.

My 9/11 Sermon Outline

Point 1: Love conquers fear (1 John 4:18). Terrorism inspires fear. Fear causes response of flight (“Islam is peaceful”) or fight (“Muslims are evil”). Without love, we lack objectivity, become reactive victims, and follow popular paths of least resistance into either denial or anxiety. With love we seize productive initiative.

Point 2: Prayer for enemies inspires proper attitudes (Matthew 5:44). When Jesus told his followers to love enemies and pray for persecutors, he compared that response to God’s response to us. God sends rain on both the righteous and the wicked. God is never a victim and always has the initiative. Human behavior does not manipulate God.

Point 3: Stephen prayed for Saul (Acts 7:60 & 8:1). Triumphing over the perpetrators of this 9-11 evil takes radical initiative.

Application: Consider “adopting” a terrorist for prayer from ATFP.org .

Persecution: Does It Help or Hurt Church Growth?

Download a pdf version.

What do President Ahmadinijad in Iran and the Americans in Afghanistan have in common? Both are presiding over the world’s fastest growing Christian populations. In Iran, the Evangelical population is growing annually at 19.6 %. In Afghanistan, the rate is 16.7%.1

Some scholars theorize that persecution may have something to do with the growth.

Overlays showing Christan Growth and Persecution

Under Chairman Mao and Chinese Communism, professing Christians in China grew from 1.5 million in 1970 to 65 million in just twenty years.2 Fed to lions and hunted into the catacombs, Christianity gradually grew to dominate the Roman Empire.3

Persecution and exponential Christian growth often coincide. However, persecution often coincides with diminishing Christianity. For example, statistics on Christianity in Iraq are reversed from what they are in Iran and Afghanistan. Although Iraq is like Afghanistan in featuring both persecution and American presence, its Christian population is declining by 2.4% annually.4

Christianity was once the dominant religion across North Africa, through the Middle East, and up into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). European Christians were once a small minority of all the Christians in the world. In 1050, Asia Minor, the land of the seven churches of the book of Revelation, boasted 373 ecclesiastical regions and was nearly 100 percent Christian. 400 years later, ecclesiastical regions in Asia Minor had dropped to three, and Christian population had dropped to less than 15 percent.5 Turkey today is nearly all Muslim and less than a quarter of a percent Christian.6

But it’s not only Islam that often displaces Christianity. During the time of nearly 300 years of persecution in Rome, Christians in Persia enjoyed relative freedom and were on their way to becoming the majority religion. Then after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire more than 190,000 Christians were martyred in Persia over the next 40 years.7

Christianity was established in China and then eliminated at least twice. Relics and inscriptions show that Christians were present, free, and growing in China during the Tang Dynasty (618-907), but when that dynasty disappeared so did the Christians.8 Franciscan friars established a Christian presence in China during the years of Mongol rule (1271-1368), but they and their ministry results disappeared after the Ming Dynasty took over (1368).9

Christianity arrived in Japan with outside trade (Portuguese in 1542), and it grew to number around 300,000 within 50 years. But in 1587 Japan expelled all its foreigners, and, in 1614, Christians came under intense persecution.10 When Japan allowed missionaries back in 1858, what they found to have survived  was some barely recognizable Christian traditions in a handful of remote fishing and island communities.11

I have a theory that explains why persecution sometimes coincides with Christian growth and sometimes coincides with Christian decline.

Martyrs who are in the socio-economic and ethno-linguistic group of their killers become a persuasive Christian testimony, but the testimony of martyrs who are in a different socio-economic and ethno-linguistic group has no significant impact on their killers.

This theory is a corollary to the “reached” and “unreached” people group categories championed by Ralph Winter and popularized at the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne, Switzerland.12

Winter and others like Donald McGavran and Cameron Townsend, the founder of Wycliffe, noticed that Christianity tends to spread within durable groups of people that have a natural affinity for one another until it reaches barriers of acceptance and understanding that exist between groups that have different identities and allegiances.

Thus a “reached people group” is one within which a sufficient number of indigenous Christians have the resources, vision, and ability to continue evangelizing their own people without meeting barriers of acceptance and understanding.

An “unreached people group” is a durable ethno-socio-linguistic unit featuring common identity and allegiance that lacks the people, resources, vision, and ability to self evangelize. Until someone from outside the group takes the gospel across the barriers of acceptance and understanding, that group will remain “unreached.”

Tertullian wrote on Roman persecution that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. He saw Christians killed for their faith, and he saw its effects on the society that was killing them.13 He was watching unbelievers within his people group killing believers who were among them – people with the same language, heritage, music, holidays, food, clothing, customs, courtesies, clothing, and living conditions.

The persecution that is happening today (in parts of China, Iran, and Afghanistan) where Christianity is growing occurs between people within the same ethno-socio-linguistic group.

However, the persecution that is happening today where Christianity is diminishing occurs between people groups. In Iraq, the unreached people group (Arab) is prevailing over the reached one (Assyrian).

Sometimes violence between reached and unreached people groups works in Christianity’s favor. Conquistadors established Christianity in Latin America,14 and Charlemagne conquered and then converted many pagan tribes of Western Europe.15 But in Egypt, Turkey, Persia, China, and Japan, power and history favored either the outside Arab and Turkic people groups invading or the inside people groups defending pagan culture.

When Christians become embedded in a people group like yeast in dough, then the heat of persecution helps them mature, propagate, and transform the loaf, but when Christians remain distinct from a people group like chocolate chips in a cookie, then the heat of persecution makes them melt away.

END NOTES:

1. Operation World 7th Edition by Jason Mandryk, Biblica Pub., 2010, p. 916.

2. World Christian Encyclopedia 2nd Edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001, vol. 1, p. 191.

3. The Church in History by B. K. Kuiper, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951, pp. 7-13.

4. Operation World, p. 470.

5. The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins, HarperCollins Pub., 2008, p. 23.

6. Operation World, p. 831.

7. Exploring Church History by Perry Thomas, World Pub., 2005, pp. 16-17.

8. The History of Christianity in Asia by Samuel Moffett, Orbis Books, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 288-314.

9. The History of Christianity in Asia, pp. 471-475.

10. A History of Christian Missions by Stephen Neill, Penguin Books Ltd., 1964, pp. 133-138.

11. The Lost History of Christianity, pp. 36-37.

12. “On the Cutting Edge of Mission Strategy” by C. Peter Wagner in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader 4th Edition, William Carey Library, 2009, p. 578.

13. Exploring Church History, p. 13.

14. A History of Christian Missions, pp. 143-148.

15. A History of Christian Missions, pp. 67-68.

Prognosis for Minorities Under Middle Eastern Democracy

signs of minorities in Egypt As a tidal wave for democracy washes across the Middle East, how might Middle Eastern democracies look?

In 2003, while advocating for change in Iraq, President Bush asked, “Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are they never to know freedom?” In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama underscored his “commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people.” He claimed, “But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure.”

Most American foreign policy experts believe that democracies will not fight each other, so, therefore, spreading democracy spreads peace. However, democracy may not be good for everybody. American democracy did not help black slaves or Native Americans for at least a hundred years. Barack Obama may have been thinking of this history when he clarified at Cairo, “And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.”

How might democracy in a place like Egypt look for all the people?

A Pew Opinion Survey published in December 2010 found that 82 percent of Muslim Egyptians favor stoning for adultery, 77 percent favor severing limbs for theft, and 84 percent favor death for apostasy (leaving Islam).

“How can this be?” asked a friend. “We think of Egypt as being more educated and modern.” We also believe that only a tiny fraction of Muslims are radical. How can the vast majority of Muslims in moderate Egypt embrace capital punishment for people who leave Islam?

The obvious answer lies so far outside of American experience that it’s not seriously considered. Islam is a political system as well as a religious one. Leaving Islam is treason. Even in the USA, treason is punishable by death. Popularity of the death penalty for leaving Islam proves that Islam is a political system. Popular support for freedom of conscience and expression in Islam evaporates like popular support for sedition in America. Politics and Islam are functionally the same.

Violence is a tool of the state. America defends and propagates its ideology both at home and abroad with violence. American soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan are state instruments for defending and propagating democracy.

Religions become violent when they become political ideologies. That’s why so many Europeans emigrated and founded America. They wanted to be free from the mixing of religion and politics that motivated Crusades and Inquisitions.

Religion without politics is mostly benign. However, government is never without access to violent tools. Atheistic dictators Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot demonstrate the potential for violence in political systems without religion. The common denominator in nearly all violence is politics.

Today, Americans have lived for so long under a system that separates church and state that they have lost touch with how most of the world still integrates politics and religion. In Indonesia, it is illegal to be an atheist. In China, many pastors are in jail for leading non-approved congregations. In Pakistan, blasphemy – defined as criticizing Mohamed – is a capital offense. Many Americans have so lost touch that they actually blame religion, rather than politics, for more violence.

minorities in ancient Egypt Now back to Egypt. In a country that is 87 percent Muslim, of whom at least 80 percent follow Islam as a political system, consensus will likely implement Muslim faith with civil law.

American history demonstrates how democracy is great for the majority, but not necessarily so great for minorities. Brutality in displacing Native Americans along with slavery and discriminatory segregation underscore this inescapable reality.

In an Egypt under majority rather than dictatorial rule, religious minorities will be like African Americans and Native Americans before the American civil rights movement. Majority rule in Egypt will not be very pretty for non-Muslim minorities. Not until Muslims begin separating their politics and religion.

Apologizing Cross-Culturally Critical in Stability Operations

contrition(Download a PDF version of this article.)

The Challenge

In international diplomacy and in stability operations, American entities are apologizing with the wrong forms. They are assuming that because the function of apology is universal the forms for it are universal as well, but they are mistaken. Using culturally inappropriate forms for apology undermines reconciliation, intensifies resentment, and prolongs hostility. No single function for communication involves more tragic cross-cultural misunderstanding with more negative consequences for modern global stability than misunderstood apologizing.

Some Cross-Cultural Communication Theory

Meaning to tell the audience his embarrassment was great for being late, the foreign missionary actually ended up telling the congregation that his private parts were very large. This misunderstanding turned out to be humorous, but the misunderstandings resulting from wrongly communicated apologies are exponentially more significant and disruptive.

Different cultures have different meanings for forms that accomplish universal functions. All societies have ways to apologize. Apologizing is a universal function. Words, grammar, and gestures, however, differ. They are forms. They have different meanings in different cultures. In the above example, the foreign guest chose the wrong word (form) to accomplish his intended apology (function) resulting in misunderstanding (missed meaning).

The “Languages” of Apology

Anthropologist Gary Chapman, whose writing and speaking popularized the five love-languages, has written with clinical psychologist Jennifer Thomas about five forms of apology. These forms from page 24, that he calls “languages of apology,” are:

  1. Expressing Regret – Saying, “I am sorry.”
  2. Accepting Responsibility – Admitting, “I was wrong.”
  3. Making Restitution – Committing, “I will make it right.”
  4. Genuinely Repenting – Promising, “I will not do that again.”
  5. Requesting Forgiveness – Asking, “Will you forgive me?”

Chapman and Thomas assert that people differ in their perceptions of apology. Different forms speak more deeply and more sincerely to different people.

You may appreciate hearing all languages, but if you don’t hear your primary apology language, you will question the sincerity of the apologizer. On the other hand, if the apology is expressed in your primary language, then you will find it much easier to forgive the offender (page 105).

What’s true between individuals who vary in personalities is doubly true between cultures that vary in language, heritage, and majority religion. Different apology forms also speak more deeply and more sincerely to different cultures.

When Arabs or Pushtuns hear apologies from Americans in American forms rather than in their own cultural form, then they question American sincerity. On the other hand, if Americans were to apologize to Arabs or Pushtuns in the primary Arab and Pushtun cultural forms, then reconciliation would be more attainable.

Some Differences Between the Forms

So what are some differences in the preferred forms for apology between cultures?

The New Testament admonition to forgive as one has been forgiven reflects a universal pattern of accepting apologies based upon God’s example. Different religions have different beliefs on apologizing to God. These religious differences result in different forms for apologizing to each other. A society’s historical, economic, and political context plays an important role as well.

Some Social Context Driven Differences

Regarding social context, American civilization takes significant control over its environment. American people have control over their careers, marriages, and religion. The American government has broad influence in the world. People with a high sense of power and control also have a high sense of responsibility. As a result, Americans tend to doubt the sincerity of apologies that avoid taking responsibility. They typically respect people who own up to their mistakes. They usually disrespect people who make excuses and blame others or circumstances. Americans especially despise the word, “but,” in any sentence that includes the words, “I am sorry.”

Most people in the world, however, have little power and minimal control over their environment. They are generally more vulnerable to nature and disasters than Americans. Arabs, for example, have little personal control over their careers, marriages, and religion. The frequently uttered phrase “insyallah,” meaning, “If God wills,” illustrates the perception that ultimate responsibility rests with God rather than people. Middle Eastern governments have little global influence and tend to see themselves as victims in a world order dominated by others. People with little sense of power and control have a low sense of responsibility. Therefore, shouldering responsibility is rarely a necessary part of their apologies, and blaming shortcomings on others is actually part of the form for apologizing. People in these contexts desire dignity more than accountability.

American quickness to apologize to the world for everything from collateral damage in air strikes and Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses, to past injustices like the slave trade, flows from a sense of being responsible and in control. Confessing “sins” and accepting responsibility fills an American emotional need, but it does not lead to reconciliation with offended populations. Those offended parties are not looking for admissions of guilt or acceptance of responsibility as much as they are looking for restitution and the affirmation of dignity that comes when someone asks for forgiveness. Neither making restitution nor requesting forgiveness requires admitting responsibility. These are the primary apology forms for much of the world.

Some Religious Context Driven Differences

Differences in religious heritage contribute significantly to difference in forms for apology. In Christian tradition, God forgives sins when his people confess them and take responsibility for them. Accordingly, no one can make restitution for his or her own sins. Only God can do that. Theologically, it’s called “substititionary atonement.” Historically, it involves the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. As a result, in personal and corporate relationships, restitution frequently comes through third parties like the government or insurance companies rather than directly from the responsible parties. Relationships are often restored with no restitution occurring at all. American apologies typically require the words “I was wrong” (confession), and “I am sorry” (regret). Often they include the words, “I will try not to do that again” (repentance).

Apologies in most of the rest of the world do not require these words of confession and accountability. To an American, omitting these sentiments would not really be an apology. And yet reconciliation happens all the time around the world in families and between tribes without anyone ever admitting guilt or accepting responsibility. In American culture, the main glue of relationships is trust, an important ideal in relationships is innocence, and a major destroyer of relationships is guilt. In most of the rest of the world’s cultures, the main glue is respect, an important ideal is honor, and a major destroyer is shame. American apologies seek to restore trust. For Americans, humbly admitting guilt enhances trustworthiness. Apologies in most other cultures seek to restore respect. Respectability involves honor, status, and appearances. Admitting guilt takes humility and undermines honor.

In both Christianity and Islam, relationship with God begins with identity as God’s people through profession of faith. In Muslim tradition, however, God forgives the sins of his people when they demonstrate that they are good Muslims by performing the ritual works of Islam (like the five pillars of Islam: fasting, praying, pilgrimage, alms giving, and reciting the creed). Confession is not necessary. Respectability is maintained. Humiliation is avoided. God forgives sins based upon good deeds outweighing bad ones. The equivalent form in personal and corporate relationships is making restitution and asking for forgiveness. Restitution is like a good deed. It affirms the dignity of both parties. Just as a government or insurance company can restore what has been lost without being at fault for someone else’s wrong-doing, a wrong-doer can restore what has been lost without ever admitting responsibility. Asking for forgiveness is different than saying “I am sorry.” It surrenders control to the other party. It moves responsibility for restoring relationship from the guilty party to the offended party. It admits to imperfection, but it does not admit to all of the details of the offense. That kind of detail would be a confession.

Making restitution and asking for forgiveness, while blaming circumstances or others in order to avoid responsibility, is the principle apology form in cultures with Muslim majorities. In many years of living and working among Muslims, I have rarely heard a Muslim say “I am sorry,” but I hear them asking for forgiveness all the time. In fact, requesting forgiveness from friends and relatives is an important feature in Muslim holiday celebrations. Humility in cultures with Muslim majorities isn’t demonstrated in the ability to admit faults but in the ability to depend upon grace from others to forgive faults that remain unconfessed. From the perspective of the people in these cultures, it is the American form for apology that sabotages reconciliation by undermining the dignity of the parties who need to reconcile. It publicly humiliates one party, it embarrasses the other, and it gives relational control to the offender rather than to the offended.

Some Practical Implications

These different forms for apologizing have different strengths and weaknesses. One form may even be objectively better than another. One may spark better social harmony than the other. For example, when reconciliation depends primarily on repentance, its highest price becomes humility. On the other hand, when it depends heavily upon restitution, a satisfactory price for justice may be too high to pay.

However, such comparisons are irrelevant to diplomacy and stability in places like Afghanistan where Americans are not called to change religiously grounded reconciliation systems but to work within what’s there. American entities must accommodate the preferred apology form of the culture with which they are dealing.

A Negative Example

In Mosul, Iraq in early 2009, a civilian sedan drove deliberately in front of a heavy American tracked vehicle as it was on patrol. The automobile driver and a passenger child were killed. The Americans made restitution to the family of the child and driver. They also apologized to the family and community by saying that they regretted causing the unfortunate accident. However, the insurgency-affiliated driver had deliberately driven in front of the Army vehicle in order to cause the collision. Anti-government elements had actually staged the incident to inflame hostility towards the Americans. The American admission of responsibility actually played into the hands of insurgents who were waging an information campaign against the Americans and against the American-supported Iraqi government. On the very day that the American Battalion Commander of the unit that had been involved in the accident was on his way to meet with community leaders to underscore his apology and deliver compensation, a member of the killed child’s family exacted revenge by driving into the Commander’s vehicle with an explosive packed car that killed the Commander.

My Recommendations

When American entities take responsibility for tragic events and negative circumstances in cultures with Muslim majorities, they undermine potential for reconciliation. In fact, the more that Americans underscore their sorrow and regret for these events and circumstances in attempting to foster sympathy and achieve good-will, the more they undercut their ability to reconcile with the people that they are offending. It’s exactly the opposite of expectations for the form of apology that’s primary in America. The admission of guilt and responsibility just serves to vindicate the aggrieved parties in their hostility. Forgiveness for transparently admitting guilt follows when entities are already in trusting relationships. When trusting relationships do not exist, that kind of transparency simply enhances justification for hostility.

Instead of expressing regret and thereby taking some measure of responsibility for everything from the Crusades to enhanced interrogations, American entities should request forgiveness – not for the perceived offenses, but for generic inadequacy. They should use words like, “If there’s anything that we’ve done to offend you, please forgive us.” This language transfers the initiative and responsibility for the relationship to the party that perceives itself to be offended without adding to their excuses for nursing bitterness. American aid for relief and development should then be offered not as restitution for American offenses, but as restitution for damage done by uncontrollable parties and circumstances. Accepting the aid becomes an admission that uncontrollable forces are to blame, that generic forgiveness is being offered, and that relationship is being established.

A Very Brief Review

Cultures have forms, functions, and meanings. Apologizing is a universal function, accomplished with different forms having different meanings in different cultures. Based upon their social context and religious heritage, Americans prefer a form of apology that emphasizes responsibility while minimizing dignity. Based upon a different context and heritage, many other cultures prefer a form of apology that maximizes dignity while minimizing responsibility.

Apologizing to people in one culture in the unfamiliar foreign form of another compounds misunderstanding and hostility over the original offense. American diplomatic and stability force entities habitually aggravate hostility and misunderstanding by apologizing in the form most familiar to them rather than in the form familiar to their audience. To facilitate global peace and security American entities in cross-cultural relationships need to understand and accommodate forms for apology that are unfamiliar to them.

(Download a PDF version of this article.)

Double Standards for Burning Holy Books

The time has come to talk about holy-book burning and ask, “Why the double standard for the Bible and Qur’an?”

Holy BooksThe Bible and the Qur’an are not equivalent books. Treating them as if they were facilitates misunderstanding and conflict.

When a pastor in Florida threatened to commemorate 9-11 by burning Qur’ans, it escalated into an international crisis (Guardian story). When the US military burned Bibles in Afghanistan, it actually defused an international crisis (CNN story).

Burning a Qur’an is exponentially more explosive than burning a Bible. It is potentially much more perilous than publishing pictures of Muhammad. In Indonesia, I saw a man die in a hospital from a beating after he’d been arrested for allegedly burning some verses of the Qur’an.

In Muslim theology, the Qur’an is a verbatim incarnation of God’s word. It is an extension of divine essence, a part of heaven. In Christian theology, Jesus fulfills that role. To Christians, the Bible is not an extension of God’s essence. It frequently quotes God in recording the history of some of God’s actions and interactions with his creation. Christians believe that Jesus is divine, and that the Bible is divinely provided and protected as a testimony to him. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is divine, and that Muhammad is divinely provided and protected as the testimony to it.

As a result, in Muslim theology, burning a Qur’an is like crucifying Christ or desecrating the Eucharist. In Christian theology, burning the Bible is like burning a very valuable and special book. Functionally, for their respective groups, the Bible and the Qur’an are different, so the responses of the respective groups are different as well.

The Muslim equivalent to the Christian Bible is their Hadith. The Hadith is the written record of the sayings and actions of Muhammad. Muslims use it to interpret and apply the Qur’an the way that Christians use the Bible to understand and apply the teachings of Jesus. Without the Hadith, there can be no authoritative application of the Qur’an. Without the Bible, there can be no authoritative knowledge of Christ.

Islam is political as well as religious. Muslims do not study the Qur’an devotionally the way that Christians study the Bible. Rather, they dissect the Qur’an legally the way that Americans treat the U.S. Constitution. A Muslim cleric is more of a legal scholar than a theological one. Muslim people leave interpreting the Qur’an to trained clerics the way that Americans leave interpreting the Constitution to trained lawyers. Muslims and Americans memorize portions of the Qur’an and Constitution. Some may memorize the whole thing. Memorizing the Qur’an or Constitution does not make one a constitutional or Muslim scholar.

Political institutions always have access to instruments of violence for defending sovereignty and policing law and order. Americans with little knowledge of the Constitution will die to defend it and protect the institutions that interpret and apply it. Similarly, Muslims sacrifice their lives to defend the Qur’an and protect the religion and institutions that spring from it. Americans have a death penalty for treason (and other crimes like murder). Muslims have a death penalty for people who leave Islam (and other crimes like adultery).

Ideally, Christians will die rather than renounce their faith in Jesus. Unlike what springs from the Constitution and the Qur’an, Jesus’ “kingdom” is not of this world. If it were, as Jesus told Pilate before his crucifixion, then his followers would have risen up to fight. Whenever people, like the Crusaders, have risen up to fight in the name of Jesus, they destroy the other-worldly nature of Jesus’ kingdom and violate the teaching of Christ. When Muslims threaten to behave violently to stop the burning of the Qur’an, they underscore the worldly nature of their kingdom and validate the comparison between burning a Qur’an and crucifying Christ.

Islam is a worldly kingdom, historically advanced and defended by Muslim political institutions. Today, the worldly kingdom of Islam is divided between many disunited countries under the dominance of a non-Muslim world system. Without a united institution to advance and defend their religion, Muslims are left all on their own to enact and threaten civil unrest when their “kingdom” is threatened.

And that, dear friends, explains why you can burn a Bible, but you can’t burn a Qur’an.

Load print version of this article.

Ground Zero Mosque Exposes Cultural Fault Lines

Ethical dilemma over building a mosque at ground zero in New York exposes some front lines in the culture war raging across America. First, it reveals agendas that become visible when comparing what people say to what they do. Second, it provides opportunity to compare the relative importance of values held by sides in the culture war.

Concerning agendas, most of the people who are pro-religious liberty for building the mosque at that location are anti-manger scenes on public sidewalks. A hidden agenda among many in this pro-mosque group may be counterbalancing their intolerance for one kind of religious expression with tolerance for another. Ironically, most of the people who oppose this location for this mosque are pro-other kinds of religious expression, such as prayer in Jesus’ name at public events. A hidden agenda among many in this anti-mosque group may be to promote one religion over another.

Regarding differing systems of values, ethical dilemmas reveal values priorities. Telling the truth is important. However, during Nazi occupation, many Dutch families hid Jews and lied to occupying forces. Telling the truth wasn’t as important as preserving those lives. The mosque at ground zero exposes competition between at least two important values: 1) National Dignity/Security; and 2) Constitutional Freedoms.

On national dignity and security, some believe allowing the mosque to be built at ground zero will underscore American pluralism and undercut popular support for America’s enemies. For those with overarching concern for America’s dignity and security, however, this mosque location will embarrass America, embolden her enemies, and encourage support for groups like Al-Qaeda. Based upon my personal experience among Muslims and upon what I am hearing from many scholars and reform-minded Muslim leaders, I consider the latter outcome to be the most likely.

With respect to constitutional freedoms, many believe that, in the interests of taste and national security, the government can zone against the religious use of certain private properties. For those with the overarching concern that religious expression should be private and free from public interference, however, such a zoning intrusion would be an unthinkable human rights violation of much greater concern than any dignity or security issues.

As in most wars, one side will win and the other side will lose. Such an outcome in this culture war would be unfortunate for all of America. Reaching a “diplomatic” solution so that both sides can win will require exposing and marginalizing hidden agendas and then accommodating and affirming both sets of competing values. In the quest for public image, the side that wins will likely lose.

Authentic Islam Seen on YouTube

The Islam on YouTube is filled with divergence and disagreement revealing Muslims are in a desperate search for authentic values and lifestyles. Do not be satisfied with drinking in what others say about Islam or what Muslims say about themselves. Learn from the raw material of  what Muslims say to and about each other. YouTube presents a glorious window into the world of art, music and instruction by Muslims for Muslims.

Here are some examples:

Groupthink on Religion Sabotages Peace

Groupthink about ReligionLast month, I discovered a “thinking error” of national “groupthink” proportions that frustrates defeating terrorism and undermines peace negotiations around the world.

“Thinking errors” are logical fallacies that affect self-image and behavior. The idea, “I am nothing but a worthless loser,” is an example. Thinking errors come in dozens of varieties that are identified and treated in the domain of cognitive behavioral psychology. They can be responsible for everything from minor depression to suicide and killing sprees.

The social psychologist Irving Janis described and popularized the concept of “groupthink” in 1972. It often results in disastrous decisions when otherwise intelligent people elevate consensus above critical thinking and moral judgment. In 1982, he noted that the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon White House was a good example of “groupthink”.

Social DifferencesI discovered this “thinking error” of “groupthink” proportions at the Air Force Academy. The class discussion was polite. Around five cadets were calling themselves non-religious. The other forty or so claimed to be religious. When asked why they were non-religious, the minority said that it was because all religions are basically the same with none demonstrably truer than another. No one contradicted this claim. No one had the courage to assert that religions were different or that one was better. Instead, the majority talked about how their religious practices, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, were personally meaningful to them.

These students intuitively sensed that if all religions are basically the same, then religious distinctions are irrelevant. Rather than challenge the proposition, they resorted to demonstrating how religion was personally relevant to them. It’s a good existential argument. It facilitates harmony when religious differences are relevant personally but not publicly. However, it will not work when religious differences have profound public impact. It’s one thing to have interfaith harmony when differences are inconsequential, as they might be at the Air Force Academy or even in America. It’s quite another to have peace when the differences have public consequences.

Fort Hood shooter, Nidal HasanIn the article “Separate Truths” published on 25 April 2010 in the Boston Globe at Boston.com, Stephen Prothero calls “this view that resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture” odd and intriguing. He notes, “No one argues that different economic systems or political systems are one and the same.” Throughout his article, he calls this concept “untrue,” “disrespectful,” “dangerous,” “false,” “condescending,” and “a threat.” He writes, “How can we make sense of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir if we pretend that Hinduism and Islam are one and the same? Or of the impasse in the Middle East, if we pretend that there are no fundamental disagreements between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?”

Only about fifteen percent of American population calls itself non-religious, but nearly one hundred percent of news reporters and policy makers are in this “groupthink” echo chamber. They are conveniently ignoring at least three ways that Muslim and Judeo-Christian religious differences have consequences in the public arena. Without addressing these differences, there will be no hope for peace in the Middle East and little chance to stem the growth of homegrown attacks from the likes of the Fort Hood shooter. These three differences are: 1) equality before the law between men and women; 2) freedom of expression; and 3) freedom of conscience.

Defending IsalamYes, it is true that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of acts of terror in the name of Islam and favor peaceful means to advance their religious views, but it is also true that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of what they consider to be immodesty, blasphemy, and apostasy. As most Americans readily support war to preserve political, economic, and religious freedom, most Muslims will similarly defend against what they consider to be challenges to the place of women and the honor of Islam. If Judeo-Christian civilization refuses to recognize these religious differences so that it can resolve them diplomatically, then it will continue suffering the consequences of violence from unaddressed differences and unwillingness to negotiate.