Tweet
ISLAM'S UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Christianity Today
March 30 2006
Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious
Freedom, is also the editor of Radical Islam's Rules: The Worldwide
Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2005). Stan Guthrie, a Christianity Today senior associate editor
and author of Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for
the 21st Century, interviewed Marshall.
You distinguish between two kinds of Shari'ah, or Islamic law, as
understood and implemented by Muslims worldwide. What are they?
In the last three years, I've been to various parts of the Muslim
world talking to people about Shari'ah. I use the term extreme
Shari'ah for the sorts of things that happen in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or
Pakistan-people getting accused of blasphemy or stoned for adultery,
and so on. But most Muslims use the term in a very broad sense. In
Indonesia, if you ask people, "Do you think women should be stoned
to death for adultery?" more than 80 percent of the population says
no. If you ask, "Is it okay for Indonesia to have a woman leader?" more
than 90 percent of the population says yes, that's fine. So they have
something very different in mind from the Taliban.
You get similar results right now in Iraq. [When asked,] "Do you
think Iraq should be governed by Islamic law?" about 80 percent
say yes. If you ask, "Do you think there should be legal equality
between men and women?" about 80 percent say yes. For many Muslims,
the term Shari'ah has a very broad sense that the country should be
governed in a way that God wants.
So most Muslims would not agree that, say, the punishment for theft
should be amputation of one's hand?
Correct. They see that as something that used to be done, but not
really fitting for the sorts of societies we live in now, that it's
not the core of what Islam is about.
Does this attitude point to modernizing tendencies in Islam?
There are modernizing tendencies, but [a larger factor is that] the
vast majority of Muslims in the world live in Africa and Asia, not
in the Middle East. Their views on Islam are not very precise. They
don't read the Qur'an; they can't read it.
Does that present an opportunity for extreme Islamists to clarify
the Qur'an for them in a way that would be dangerous for heretics
and adulterers?
Very much so. In countries such as Bangladesh or Indonesia, Islam
historically has been very broad and moderate in outlook. But radical
Islamic preachers, especially from the Gulf, especially funded by Saudi
Arabia, are coming in. They've built mosques. They're providing people,
imams, scholarships. And so you're getting an increasing radicalization
in these populations that beforehand were more or less theologically
illiterate. People are telling them, "If you want to be a true Muslim,
a good Muslim, a proper Muslim, this is what you should do." This
means, essentially, that they should start imitating Saudis.
How did extreme Shari'ah spread across the world?
In 1975, only one major country practiced these types of laws: Saudi
Arabia. Beginning in 1979, you had the overthrow in Iran of the Shah
by Ayatollah Khomeini, and Iran began to institute similar laws.
There are differences: Iran is Shiite; Saudi Arabia is Sunni. But in
terms of the hudud laws, the criminal laws, which involve amputation,
crucifixion, stoning, and so on, they're very similar in outlook. In
both cases, the status of women is very, very poor. The status of
minorities is very, very poor.
Within Pakistan, the growth of such laws has been gradual. Through the
1980s, [we've seen] the increased influence of Shari'ah law, especially
under General [Muhammad] Zia-ul-Haq, and the introduction of blasphemy
laws for anybody insulting God, the Qur'an, or the Prophet Muhammad.
Beginning in 1983 in Sudan, the National Islamic Front, an offshoot
of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, came into power. It instituted an
extremely draconian form of Shari'ah. It executed people who opposed
these laws on the grounds that opposing its type of Shari'ah was itself
against Shari'ah. That was one of the factors that precipitated the
civil war between the largely Arab, Muslim northern Sudan and the
largely black, African Christian south. In Chechnya, southern Russia,
rebels have been trying to imitate the Sudanese legal code.
How did it come to Nigeria?
Beginning in 1995, the state of Zamfara began to institute these types
of laws. Of 36 states in the country, 12 of them now have these types
of laws on the books. Some are much more severe than others.
But essentially this has happened right across the northern swath
of Nigeria, and there's increased pressure in the central areas
of Nigeria.
In nearly all of these countries [Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and Nigeria],
some form of Islamic law had been operating already . laws governing
marriage, divorce, inheritance, and family law. But when I talk
about the spread of Shari'ah, I mean that they changed the criminal
code. They changed the law of evidence within the courts so that
evidence from men and women was given different weight. They segregated
public transportation systems so that unmarried men and women could
not travel together, and so on. It's a quantum leap in the expression
of Islam.
Has this extreme form of Islam spread elsewhere?
No other countries have adopted it wholesale. In fact, Malaysia has
resisted these types of Shari'ah. In the last ten years, the two
northern states tried to institute these laws. Because Malaysia is
a federation, the federal government has the power to strike down
these laws, and it has. But still, people in those two states have
been arrested for blasphemy. Even though [such treatment] is strictly
illegal, [local] governments can usually find a way to put someone
in prison. Similarly, in Indonesia, there has been strong resistance
at the national level to these types of laws. But at a town level or
a county level, more extreme groups are starting to implement the laws.
Indonesia is a big, sprawling country, and in lots of pockets around
the country, people carry out the laws in their own way. You get
vigilantes operating. In parts of western Java, someone driving a
car on a Friday afternoon, Muslim or Christian, may get [his or her]
car stoned.
You'll also find this going on in Bangladesh. It's not the government
doing this, but if you're in poor, remote areas, you'll often find
yourself subject to these laws.
What has been the impetus to spread extreme Shari'ah over the last
30 years?
In many of these countries, economically they have not been doing
well. There's also extremely widespread corruption. Islamist parties,
when they have campaigned, have spoken of poverty. They've also
pointed out, correctly, the tremendous corruption. They've said,
"The reason for our poverty, the reason our country is not doing well,
is that we are not good Muslims. If we were truly faithful, if we were
strict Muslims, we would do much better." They also say, "We're very
committed Muslims. We will not be corrupt." And a lot of the support
for more extreme forms of Islam comes from people who think, While they
may be much too strict for me, at least they're going to be honest. I
won't have to pay a bribe for every single thing I need in life.
Another reason is, again, the export of Muslim missionaries and
literature from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
What percentage of the Muslim world supports extreme Shari'ah?
The percentages are very hard to come by. In Indonesia, people who
support more radical Islamist parties make up about 13 percent or
14 percent of the population. Back in 1983, the National Islamic
Front received about 12 percent of the vote in Sudan. In Pakistan,
the numbers are similar. In Nigeria, support has been much higher,
but mainly, I think, because of anti-corruption motivations. You're
probably looking worldwide at 10 percent to 15 percent of the
population.
Would that include support for Al Qaeda?
Not necessarily. Certainly, some of those people would. Perhaps
10 percent or 15 percent-that's a broad estimate, a guess-want to
institute the type of society that Al Qaeda wants. Think of the
Taliban. Think of Iran. Think of Saudi Arabia. Many of them push for
that peacefully. The 10 percent or 15 percent are people who share
the goal, but not the means. They may applaud Al Qaeda. If you ask
them if they like [Osama] bin Laden, very often the answer is yes.
He's widely admired. If you say, "Do you support the killing of
prisoners by Zarqawi in Iraq?" they'll say no. And they might add
there's no evidence that Al Qaeda does those things. So there's broad
sympathy. The number who would actively engage in and give money to
such movements would be a couple of percent.
What is the ultimate goal of the Islamists?
There are four points. One is to unite Muslims, who are fragmented
into different countries and faiths, as one political unit. Two is
that they will be governed by a caliph-one political and religious
ruler of the united Muslim world. Three, the area controlled by
Muslims will be ruled by forms of extreme Shari'ah law. A fourth
point, which certainly the terrorists share with some others, is that
the reunited Muslim political grouping would organize to wage war,
jihad, against the rest of the world to continue the expansion of
Islam until it has conquered the whole world.
But while all would like to export it, not all believe in trying to
spread it by war. For the moment, they just want to control their own
area, the places where they live, and try to make sure it's the form
of Islam they feel is right.
Is Islam a religion of peace?
Islam was often warlike in its first centuries. Islamic rule was
spread by military conquests, so it's certainly not true that Islam
is a religion of peace in the same way that Quakers or the Amish is
a religion of peace. Conflict and war go back a long way in Islamic
history. But I wouldn't say that war is a necessary feature of Islam,
that whenever you have Islam, you're going to have war. Islam has
often been a warlike religion. That does not mean it has to be a
warlike religion now.
Is militant Islam the real Islam?
I speak of existing Islam. That is, what is Islam like now, what are
Muslims like now? I'm not in a position to say what authentic Islam
is. I will say that if you go through the Bible, you will also find
the death penalty for idolatry. You'll find draconian punishments
for adultery. You will find war in the name of God. I know of almost
no Christians, even the most conservative, who believe that it's
necessary to do those things in order to be a true Christian. We need
to be careful not to have a double standard. There are certain things
within Christianity, within Judaism, that were for a particular time.
We need to allow Muslims to say the same thing.
Is extremist Islam growing in Europe and North America?
Certainly in Europe. One of the frightening things about Europe is
that the second and third generation immigrants are much more radical
than their parents. You're not getting assimilation; you're getting
the opposite. In places such as England, the first generation of
immigrants from Pakistan 30 or 40 years ago came in, got menial jobs,
opened shops, and were sort of marginalized but relatively peaceful.
They wanted to make a success of life. The radicals are their children
and in some cases even their grandchildren. As time goes on in Europe,
the Muslim populations are becoming more radical, and, of course,
the total numbers of Muslims are increasing. This is a frightening
phenomenon for Europeans.
In the United States, the sociology of the Muslim population is very,
very different. In Europe, many Muslim immigrants are low income,
very poor, brought in to do menial jobs. In some ways within the
society, they fill the slot that illegal immigrants fill in the
United States. But in the U.S., our Muslim population tends to be
highly educated. I think more than 60 percent have degrees, and,
in general, they do not live in separate neighborhoods. Whether
radicalism is growing, I don't know. There are indications it is
among African Americans and in prison populations.
Are Islam and democracy compatible?
Yes, they are. Indonesia and Turkey are among the largest Muslim
populations in the world. They've got great problems. Often their
elections have not been that clean. But they are functioning
democracies. Mali in Africa is a very poor country, 99 percent
Muslim. It's very free and has free and fair elections. Islam and
democracy, as a practical matter, do coexist in the world. The big
problem tends to be in the Arab world. Democracies are very hard to
come by [there].
How does extreme Shari'ah affect Christians when Islamists gain
control? Almost immediately, there are restrictions on the building
or repair of churches or the expansion of Christianity. You must
stay where you are; you must stay in a subordinate position. Second,
churches built without permits get destroyed. Third, Christians
are often accused of blasphemy against Islam or of criticizing
Islam. The pressure becomes very bad indeed. You get a community
that is isolated and marginalized. Preaching the gospel to a Muslim
is very strongly forbidden. That can get you killed. Or, if a Muslim
decides to convert to Christianity or, indeed, to any other religion,
there's a good chance that he or she will be killed as an apostate.
How should Christians under such pressure respond?
It will depend on the situation. If you're in a situation of severe
threat, such as in Iran or Afghanistan, you keep your head down and
simply manage the best you can. In situations where there are greater
possibilities for change, such as Pakistan or Egypt, the Christian
community becomes more outspoken. In Nigeria, there has been violent
resistance by Christian bodies. Much of the violence consists of
attacks by Muslims on Christians, but there are attacks the other
way around as well. Then you have Sudan, in which-partly because of
Shari'ah-the Christians and others have waged war to resist control by
radical Islam. You see quite a range of options going on, and which
one is right will very much depend on the circumstances. You have to
make a judgment on what is possible.
So is taking up arms sometimes justifiable for Christians in your view?
Oh, yes, very much so. The Armenians have a long history of doing that,
also the Ethiopians. These are areas where Christians still control
territories and have often fought to maintain them. The defense through
arms of a community and territory may well be a legitimate option,
and that was the case in southern Sudan. The government was, in fact,
waging a genocidal war, and the result could very likely have been
the extermination of the Christian community.
That's happened in many other places, such as Central Asia. I think
on just-war grounds that can certainly be defended.
What should Western Christians do?
Develop strong relations with the Christian communities in those
areas and find out what they need. Also, cultivate relations with
Muslims in those countries and elsewhere to raise these questions.
But remember that it's much more important for Muslims and Christians
to talk locally. Muslims in the Middle East should talk to Christians
in the Middle East.
As you look at the spread of extreme Shari'ah law and some of the
tensions within Islam, are you hopeful or pessimistic?
If we're talking about the next few decades, I'm pessimistic. The
influence of extreme forms of Islam and Shari'ah appear to be
growing. Radical sentiment as a whole seems to be on the increase in
the Muslim world. It's still a minority, but the people pushing for
it are committed, organized, well funded, and have clear goals. The
people who are opposed to them are often not well funded, organized,
or committed, and they don't have a clear goal. When you have small,
committed groups and a fairly amorphous majority group, the small,
committed groups can make headway. I see that happening around the
world. Regarding the struggle against radical Islam, to the degree that
it's a war of ideas, it's a war that so far the radicals are winning.
Christianity Today
March 30 2006
Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious
Freedom, is also the editor of Radical Islam's Rules: The Worldwide
Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2005). Stan Guthrie, a Christianity Today senior associate editor
and author of Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for
the 21st Century, interviewed Marshall.
You distinguish between two kinds of Shari'ah, or Islamic law, as
understood and implemented by Muslims worldwide. What are they?
In the last three years, I've been to various parts of the Muslim
world talking to people about Shari'ah. I use the term extreme
Shari'ah for the sorts of things that happen in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or
Pakistan-people getting accused of blasphemy or stoned for adultery,
and so on. But most Muslims use the term in a very broad sense. In
Indonesia, if you ask people, "Do you think women should be stoned
to death for adultery?" more than 80 percent of the population says
no. If you ask, "Is it okay for Indonesia to have a woman leader?" more
than 90 percent of the population says yes, that's fine. So they have
something very different in mind from the Taliban.
You get similar results right now in Iraq. [When asked,] "Do you
think Iraq should be governed by Islamic law?" about 80 percent
say yes. If you ask, "Do you think there should be legal equality
between men and women?" about 80 percent say yes. For many Muslims,
the term Shari'ah has a very broad sense that the country should be
governed in a way that God wants.
So most Muslims would not agree that, say, the punishment for theft
should be amputation of one's hand?
Correct. They see that as something that used to be done, but not
really fitting for the sorts of societies we live in now, that it's
not the core of what Islam is about.
Does this attitude point to modernizing tendencies in Islam?
There are modernizing tendencies, but [a larger factor is that] the
vast majority of Muslims in the world live in Africa and Asia, not
in the Middle East. Their views on Islam are not very precise. They
don't read the Qur'an; they can't read it.
Does that present an opportunity for extreme Islamists to clarify
the Qur'an for them in a way that would be dangerous for heretics
and adulterers?
Very much so. In countries such as Bangladesh or Indonesia, Islam
historically has been very broad and moderate in outlook. But radical
Islamic preachers, especially from the Gulf, especially funded by Saudi
Arabia, are coming in. They've built mosques. They're providing people,
imams, scholarships. And so you're getting an increasing radicalization
in these populations that beforehand were more or less theologically
illiterate. People are telling them, "If you want to be a true Muslim,
a good Muslim, a proper Muslim, this is what you should do." This
means, essentially, that they should start imitating Saudis.
How did extreme Shari'ah spread across the world?
In 1975, only one major country practiced these types of laws: Saudi
Arabia. Beginning in 1979, you had the overthrow in Iran of the Shah
by Ayatollah Khomeini, and Iran began to institute similar laws.
There are differences: Iran is Shiite; Saudi Arabia is Sunni. But in
terms of the hudud laws, the criminal laws, which involve amputation,
crucifixion, stoning, and so on, they're very similar in outlook. In
both cases, the status of women is very, very poor. The status of
minorities is very, very poor.
Within Pakistan, the growth of such laws has been gradual. Through the
1980s, [we've seen] the increased influence of Shari'ah law, especially
under General [Muhammad] Zia-ul-Haq, and the introduction of blasphemy
laws for anybody insulting God, the Qur'an, or the Prophet Muhammad.
Beginning in 1983 in Sudan, the National Islamic Front, an offshoot
of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, came into power. It instituted an
extremely draconian form of Shari'ah. It executed people who opposed
these laws on the grounds that opposing its type of Shari'ah was itself
against Shari'ah. That was one of the factors that precipitated the
civil war between the largely Arab, Muslim northern Sudan and the
largely black, African Christian south. In Chechnya, southern Russia,
rebels have been trying to imitate the Sudanese legal code.
How did it come to Nigeria?
Beginning in 1995, the state of Zamfara began to institute these types
of laws. Of 36 states in the country, 12 of them now have these types
of laws on the books. Some are much more severe than others.
But essentially this has happened right across the northern swath
of Nigeria, and there's increased pressure in the central areas
of Nigeria.
In nearly all of these countries [Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and Nigeria],
some form of Islamic law had been operating already . laws governing
marriage, divorce, inheritance, and family law. But when I talk
about the spread of Shari'ah, I mean that they changed the criminal
code. They changed the law of evidence within the courts so that
evidence from men and women was given different weight. They segregated
public transportation systems so that unmarried men and women could
not travel together, and so on. It's a quantum leap in the expression
of Islam.
Has this extreme form of Islam spread elsewhere?
No other countries have adopted it wholesale. In fact, Malaysia has
resisted these types of Shari'ah. In the last ten years, the two
northern states tried to institute these laws. Because Malaysia is
a federation, the federal government has the power to strike down
these laws, and it has. But still, people in those two states have
been arrested for blasphemy. Even though [such treatment] is strictly
illegal, [local] governments can usually find a way to put someone
in prison. Similarly, in Indonesia, there has been strong resistance
at the national level to these types of laws. But at a town level or
a county level, more extreme groups are starting to implement the laws.
Indonesia is a big, sprawling country, and in lots of pockets around
the country, people carry out the laws in their own way. You get
vigilantes operating. In parts of western Java, someone driving a
car on a Friday afternoon, Muslim or Christian, may get [his or her]
car stoned.
You'll also find this going on in Bangladesh. It's not the government
doing this, but if you're in poor, remote areas, you'll often find
yourself subject to these laws.
What has been the impetus to spread extreme Shari'ah over the last
30 years?
In many of these countries, economically they have not been doing
well. There's also extremely widespread corruption. Islamist parties,
when they have campaigned, have spoken of poverty. They've also
pointed out, correctly, the tremendous corruption. They've said,
"The reason for our poverty, the reason our country is not doing well,
is that we are not good Muslims. If we were truly faithful, if we were
strict Muslims, we would do much better." They also say, "We're very
committed Muslims. We will not be corrupt." And a lot of the support
for more extreme forms of Islam comes from people who think, While they
may be much too strict for me, at least they're going to be honest. I
won't have to pay a bribe for every single thing I need in life.
Another reason is, again, the export of Muslim missionaries and
literature from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
What percentage of the Muslim world supports extreme Shari'ah?
The percentages are very hard to come by. In Indonesia, people who
support more radical Islamist parties make up about 13 percent or
14 percent of the population. Back in 1983, the National Islamic
Front received about 12 percent of the vote in Sudan. In Pakistan,
the numbers are similar. In Nigeria, support has been much higher,
but mainly, I think, because of anti-corruption motivations. You're
probably looking worldwide at 10 percent to 15 percent of the
population.
Would that include support for Al Qaeda?
Not necessarily. Certainly, some of those people would. Perhaps
10 percent or 15 percent-that's a broad estimate, a guess-want to
institute the type of society that Al Qaeda wants. Think of the
Taliban. Think of Iran. Think of Saudi Arabia. Many of them push for
that peacefully. The 10 percent or 15 percent are people who share
the goal, but not the means. They may applaud Al Qaeda. If you ask
them if they like [Osama] bin Laden, very often the answer is yes.
He's widely admired. If you say, "Do you support the killing of
prisoners by Zarqawi in Iraq?" they'll say no. And they might add
there's no evidence that Al Qaeda does those things. So there's broad
sympathy. The number who would actively engage in and give money to
such movements would be a couple of percent.
What is the ultimate goal of the Islamists?
There are four points. One is to unite Muslims, who are fragmented
into different countries and faiths, as one political unit. Two is
that they will be governed by a caliph-one political and religious
ruler of the united Muslim world. Three, the area controlled by
Muslims will be ruled by forms of extreme Shari'ah law. A fourth
point, which certainly the terrorists share with some others, is that
the reunited Muslim political grouping would organize to wage war,
jihad, against the rest of the world to continue the expansion of
Islam until it has conquered the whole world.
But while all would like to export it, not all believe in trying to
spread it by war. For the moment, they just want to control their own
area, the places where they live, and try to make sure it's the form
of Islam they feel is right.
Is Islam a religion of peace?
Islam was often warlike in its first centuries. Islamic rule was
spread by military conquests, so it's certainly not true that Islam
is a religion of peace in the same way that Quakers or the Amish is
a religion of peace. Conflict and war go back a long way in Islamic
history. But I wouldn't say that war is a necessary feature of Islam,
that whenever you have Islam, you're going to have war. Islam has
often been a warlike religion. That does not mean it has to be a
warlike religion now.
Is militant Islam the real Islam?
I speak of existing Islam. That is, what is Islam like now, what are
Muslims like now? I'm not in a position to say what authentic Islam
is. I will say that if you go through the Bible, you will also find
the death penalty for idolatry. You'll find draconian punishments
for adultery. You will find war in the name of God. I know of almost
no Christians, even the most conservative, who believe that it's
necessary to do those things in order to be a true Christian. We need
to be careful not to have a double standard. There are certain things
within Christianity, within Judaism, that were for a particular time.
We need to allow Muslims to say the same thing.
Is extremist Islam growing in Europe and North America?
Certainly in Europe. One of the frightening things about Europe is
that the second and third generation immigrants are much more radical
than their parents. You're not getting assimilation; you're getting
the opposite. In places such as England, the first generation of
immigrants from Pakistan 30 or 40 years ago came in, got menial jobs,
opened shops, and were sort of marginalized but relatively peaceful.
They wanted to make a success of life. The radicals are their children
and in some cases even their grandchildren. As time goes on in Europe,
the Muslim populations are becoming more radical, and, of course,
the total numbers of Muslims are increasing. This is a frightening
phenomenon for Europeans.
In the United States, the sociology of the Muslim population is very,
very different. In Europe, many Muslim immigrants are low income,
very poor, brought in to do menial jobs. In some ways within the
society, they fill the slot that illegal immigrants fill in the
United States. But in the U.S., our Muslim population tends to be
highly educated. I think more than 60 percent have degrees, and,
in general, they do not live in separate neighborhoods. Whether
radicalism is growing, I don't know. There are indications it is
among African Americans and in prison populations.
Are Islam and democracy compatible?
Yes, they are. Indonesia and Turkey are among the largest Muslim
populations in the world. They've got great problems. Often their
elections have not been that clean. But they are functioning
democracies. Mali in Africa is a very poor country, 99 percent
Muslim. It's very free and has free and fair elections. Islam and
democracy, as a practical matter, do coexist in the world. The big
problem tends to be in the Arab world. Democracies are very hard to
come by [there].
How does extreme Shari'ah affect Christians when Islamists gain
control? Almost immediately, there are restrictions on the building
or repair of churches or the expansion of Christianity. You must
stay where you are; you must stay in a subordinate position. Second,
churches built without permits get destroyed. Third, Christians
are often accused of blasphemy against Islam or of criticizing
Islam. The pressure becomes very bad indeed. You get a community
that is isolated and marginalized. Preaching the gospel to a Muslim
is very strongly forbidden. That can get you killed. Or, if a Muslim
decides to convert to Christianity or, indeed, to any other religion,
there's a good chance that he or she will be killed as an apostate.
How should Christians under such pressure respond?
It will depend on the situation. If you're in a situation of severe
threat, such as in Iran or Afghanistan, you keep your head down and
simply manage the best you can. In situations where there are greater
possibilities for change, such as Pakistan or Egypt, the Christian
community becomes more outspoken. In Nigeria, there has been violent
resistance by Christian bodies. Much of the violence consists of
attacks by Muslims on Christians, but there are attacks the other
way around as well. Then you have Sudan, in which-partly because of
Shari'ah-the Christians and others have waged war to resist control by
radical Islam. You see quite a range of options going on, and which
one is right will very much depend on the circumstances. You have to
make a judgment on what is possible.
So is taking up arms sometimes justifiable for Christians in your view?
Oh, yes, very much so. The Armenians have a long history of doing that,
also the Ethiopians. These are areas where Christians still control
territories and have often fought to maintain them. The defense through
arms of a community and territory may well be a legitimate option,
and that was the case in southern Sudan. The government was, in fact,
waging a genocidal war, and the result could very likely have been
the extermination of the Christian community.
That's happened in many other places, such as Central Asia. I think
on just-war grounds that can certainly be defended.
What should Western Christians do?
Develop strong relations with the Christian communities in those
areas and find out what they need. Also, cultivate relations with
Muslims in those countries and elsewhere to raise these questions.
But remember that it's much more important for Muslims and Christians
to talk locally. Muslims in the Middle East should talk to Christians
in the Middle East.
As you look at the spread of extreme Shari'ah law and some of the
tensions within Islam, are you hopeful or pessimistic?
If we're talking about the next few decades, I'm pessimistic. The
influence of extreme forms of Islam and Shari'ah appear to be
growing. Radical sentiment as a whole seems to be on the increase in
the Muslim world. It's still a minority, but the people pushing for
it are committed, organized, well funded, and have clear goals. The
people who are opposed to them are often not well funded, organized,
or committed, and they don't have a clear goal. When you have small,
committed groups and a fairly amorphous majority group, the small,
committed groups can make headway. I see that happening around the
world. Regarding the struggle against radical Islam, to the degree that
it's a war of ideas, it's a war that so far the radicals are winning.