We’re excited that we get to attend a presentation tomorrow by Tim Furnish, Ph.D. (Ohio State), author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden and numerous scholarly and popular articles, and maintainer of MahdiWatch.org. I interviewed him once for a position at Reinhardt but unfortunately something came up and he couldn’t take it. Click the last link to read more; I quite like this post:
C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, famously said that Christians could make one of two equally unfortunate errors regarding demons: one was to “disbelieve in their existence;” the other “to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” After a quarter century of studying Islamic history, I’ve decided that analogous dual pitfalls beckon, and often entrap, Westerners.
On one hand, Western (mainly, but not only, American) conservatives—politically or in the Christian churches; often both—view Muhammad as nothing more than a demonic charlatan and/or a pedophile, whose religion is satanic or, alternatively, is not a religion at all.
On the other hand, Western (again, not only American) liberals—in the political realm, and in the mainstream/liberal churches, as well as much of the usually non-liberal hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church—engage in their own massive brand of denial, ignoring empirical and historical data about jihad, failing to differentiate Christian and Islamic doctrines, and even suggesting that Islam and Christianity are equally valid paths to God (as does the Catholic Church in its Cathechism, para 841).
I reject both the rock-headed Scylla of my conservative colleagues, and the sucking sychophancy of the liberals’ Charybdis. Instead, consider the tough love approach to Islam’s founder, spelled out by the Anglican cleric J.M. Rodwell, in his translation of the Qur’an published in 1909 (the best rendering of the Arabic text I’ve yet found, by the way):
If he was indeed the illiterate person the Muslims represent him to have been, then…the Koran is, as they assert it to be, a standing miracle. But if…it was a book carefully concocted from various sources, and with much extraneous aid, and published as a divine oracle, then it…the author is at once open to the charge of the grossest imposture….The evidence rather shews, that in all he did and wrote, Muhammad was actuated by a sincere desire to deliver his countrymen from the grossness of…debasing ideologies…that the end to be attained justified to his mind the means he adopted in the production of the Suras—that he worked himself up into a belief that he had received a divine call—and that he was carried on by… gradually increasing successes, to believe himself the accredited messenger of Heaven….
At the same time, he was probably, more or less, throughout his whole career, the victim of a certain amount of self-deception. A cataleptic [epileptic] subject from his early youth, born—according to the traditions—of a highly nervous and excitable mother, he would be peculiarly liable to morbid and fantastic hallucinations, and alternations of excitement and depression, which would win for him, in the eyes of his ignorant countrymen, the credit of being inspired. It would be easy for him to persuade himself that he was the “seal of the Prophets….”
It is nearer to the truth to say that he was a great though imperfect character, an earnest though mistaken teacher…and that there must be elements both of truth and goodness in the system of which he was the main author, to account for the world-wide phenomenon, that…has now lasted for nearly thirteen centuries, and embraces more than one hundred millions [at the time of Rodwell’s writing]….
This via media approach to the founder of the world’s second-largest religion will please neither the Hard Right nor the Loony Left—but it has the virtue of being historically accurate. Seeing Muhammad as devout yet deluded, and thus Islam itself as inadequate but not evil, has certain ramifications. On the one hand, it requires acknowledging that violence against non-Muslims is derived from Qur’anic literalism and Muhammadan emulation—as the Left is loath to admit. But, on the other hand, unwavering intellectual honesty about Islam and its founder means we must confess some truths inconvenient for the Right—such as the amazing political achievements of the Ottomans, and the undeniable positive piety of many Sufis and some Islamic sects.
As a Christian, I must remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) applies to me and my co-religionists, not just those of other faiths; but I also know that believing in the oneness of God, and trembling before Him (James 2:19), is no guarantee of salvation. During this Lenten season, perhaps it would behoove conservative Christians to acknowledge that the Qur’an contains some wheat, and liberal ones to stop turning a blind eye to its legion of chaff—while ceasing to beat each other with the winnowing fork of self-righteousness.