Wealthy Kenyans and Westerners bustled about Westgate Shopping 
Mall in Nairobi on Saturday. Families ate lunch in the food court. A 
radio station targeting Kenyan Asians was hosting a children’s event on 
the roof of the parking lot.
Around noon, armed gunmen stormed the mall and exploded grenades. 
Thousands of terrified people dropped to the floor, fled out of exits 
and hid in stores. The gunmen began lining people up and shooting some 
of the five dozen people they would slaughter and 240 people, ages 2 to 
78, that they would wound.
  
Al-Shabaab, which is claiming credit for the attack, is reported to 
have singled out non-Muslims. “A witness to the attacks at Nairobi’s 
upscale mall says that gunmen told Muslims to stand up and leave and 
that non-Muslims would be targeted,” according to the Associated Press.
To weed out the infidels, according to news reports, the terrorists 
asked people for the name of Muhammad’s mother or to recite a verse from
 the Quran.
And that wasn’t even the worst terrorist attack 
of the weekend.
The Washington
 Post reported that one British mother and her young children 
survived when captors who shot her allowed her to leave on the condition
 she immediately convert to Islam. The siege of the mall, which included
 the taking of hostages, lasted four days. Three floors of the mall 
collapsed and bodies were buried in the rubble.
And that wasn’t even the worst terrorist attack of the weekend.
The next day, two suicide bombs went off as Christians were leaving
 Sunday services at All Saints Anglican Church in Peshawar, 
Pakistan.
“There were blasts and there was hell for all of us,” Nazir John, who
 was at the church with at least 400 other worshipers, told the 
Associated Press. “When I got my senses back, I found nothing but smoke,
 dust, blood and screaming people. I saw severed body parts and blood 
all around.”
Some 85 Christians were slaughtered and 120 injured, the bloodiest 
attack on Christians in Pakistan in history. The hospital ran out of 
beds for the injured and there weren’t enough caskets for the dead.
“I found nothing but smoke, dust, blood and screaming 
people. I saw severed body parts and blood all around.”
The violence of just three days in mid-August was staggering. 
Thirty-eight churches were destroyed, 23 vandalized; 58 homes were 
burned and looted and 85 shops, 16 pharmacies and 3 hotels were 
demolished. It was so bad that the Coptic Pope was in hiding, many 
Sunday services were canceled, and Christians stayed indoors, fearing 
for their lives. Six Christians were killed in the violence. Seven were 
kidnapped.
Maalula, Syria, is an ancient Christian town that has been so 
sheltered for 2,000 years that it’s one of only three villages where 
people still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Until September 7, 
when Islamist rebels attacked as part of the civil war ripping through 
the country.
An eyewitness to the murder of three Christians in Maalula—Mikhael 
Taalab, his cousin Antoun Taalab, and his grandson Sarkis el 
Zakhm—reported that the Islamists warned everyone present to convert to 
Islam. Sarkis answered clearly, Vatican news agency Fides
 reported: “I am a Christian and if you want to kill me because I am a 
Christian, do it.”
Sister Carmel, one of the Christians in Damascus who assist Maalula’s
 many displaced Christians, told Fides, “What Sarkis did is true 
martyrdom, a death in odium fidei.”
In recent weeks, we have Muslims killing Christians in Kenya, Egypt, 
Pakistan and Syria. Again.
It’s time to ask an important question that many of us have 
successfully avoided for far too long:
Can we finally start talking about the global persecution of 
Christians and other non-Muslims?
Finally? Please?
A case study in reaction
As Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert and Nina Shea write in Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians, “Christians are the single most widely persecuted religious group in the world today. This is confirmed in studies by sources as diverse as the Vatican, Open Doors, the Pew Research Center, Commentary, Newsweek and the Economist. According to one estimate, by the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, 75 percent of acts of religious intolerance are directed against Christians.”
How well does the media tell that story? And how did they cover this 
weekend’s events? As Anglicans
 and other Christians worldwide grieved the brutal attack in Pakistan, 
the media… did not. The worst attack on Pakistani Christians in history 
didn’t make the front page of the New York Times. The Washington
 Post buried the story on page A7 of Monday’s paper. On the front 
page of the BBC web site, a small headline “Pakistan church blast kills 
dozens” was below stories on Angela Merkel and the Emmys. By the next 
day, the story was nowhere to be found.
British blogger Archbishop Cranmer noted,
 “Without media coverage we in the West cannot smell the fear of those 
Christians who are persecuted by Muslims all over the world.”
“Without media coverage we in the West cannot 
smell the fear of those Christians who are persecuted by Muslims all 
over the world.”
The Christian Science Monitor asked the promising question, “Why
 did militants attack Pakistani Christians?” and discovered that, 
well, it was really just a case of militants of unspecified religion 
looking for a “controversial” target and “more spectacular, 
attention-grabbing attacks.” Why the church? Certainly not because of 
any particular animosity towards Christians—it was just that the 
Christians were “vulnerable.”
Trying to explain the attack in Kenya, Think Progress 
published an interesting piece headlined “What
 The Deadly Attack On A Kenya Mall Was Really About.” It talks about
 the weakness of al Shabaab and the terror group’s efforts to provoke 
conflict in Kenya. The words Muslim and Islam do not appear in the 
article. Another article is headlined “Five
 Things The Kenya Mall Attack Tells Us About Global Terrorism.” 
Spoiler alert: The Kenya mall attack doesn’t tell us anything about 
religious violence.
And what about Egypt? Well, as the persecution of Christians has 
heated up, the press tends to portray the violence against Christians as
 “sectarian skirmishes” or “clashes” between religious groups. This is 
about as accurate as describing the Armenian genocide as “clashes” 
between Turks and Armenians.
“Islam is peace.”
Right after the worst terrorist attack on American soil on September 11, 2001, American leaders from George W. Bush on down rushed to portray Islam as peaceful. While it’s simplistic to characterize any religion or other belief system as being strictly about “violence” or “peace,” the Bush Administration had a compelling political interest in marginalizing Islamist terrorists and assuring Muslims throughout the world that American reprisals weren’t going to be indiscriminately applied to all practitioners of the religion.
Sure, the terrorists clearly and explicitly claimed they were 
fighting for Islam. But if Americans responded in agreement, the duty of
 Muslims to fight for their religion could have quickly led to a global 
conflagration.
Politicians claiming Islam is nothing more than a 
peaceful religion usually aren’t exegetical experts.
On September 17, 2001, President George W. Bush stopped by the 
Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., and said,
 “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what 
Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent 
peace. They represent evil and war.”
Twelve years ago in the heat of the moment, this may have made sense,
 however ill-advised it is for politicians to be taken seriously as 
theologians (even those who claim Jesus
 as their favorite political philosopher). But politicians are still
 doing it. After two Islamist terrorists beheaded a British soldier in 
the street in front of an elementary school, Deputy Prime Minister Nick 
Clegg quoted from the Quran and assured everyone that Islam had been 
“perverted” by soldier Lee Rigby’s murderers, who claimed they were 
beheading the soldier in the name of Islam.
“Terrorism has no religion because there is no religious conviction 
that can justify the kind of arbitrary, savage random violence that we 
saw on the streets of Woolwich,” said Clegg.
That’s very similar to what Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif 
said in his statement this weekend: “The terrorists have no religion and
 targeting innocent people is against the teachings of Islam and all 
religions.”
Well it’s all settled then! If we could just somehow convey to the 
Islamist terrorists that they, in fact, have no relationship whatsoever 
to Islam, we could all just get back to the business of watching Emmys.
One problem with this approach, and I’m not even talking about the 
1300 years of history that speaks to the use of violence in pursuit of 
the spread of Islam, is that the politicians claiming Islam is nothing 
more than a peaceful religion usually aren’t exegetical experts.
For example, Clegg cited chapter 5, verse 32 of the Quran as “If 
anyone kills a human being it shall be as though he killed all mankind 
whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole 
of mankind.”
This is a favorite verse of politicians. (It’s also been used by 
Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama.) The only problem with using 
this verse is that people always fail to quote the entire verse, which 
in this case changes the meaning a bit. And even worse, the verse is 
excerpted completely out of context. With the caveat that any time you 
put 12 Muslims, Mormons or Methodists in a room, you might get 12 
different explanations for what a verse means, let’s just say that even a
 reading of the following verse suggests that we’re not exactly in the peaceful section of the Quran:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.
One could understand that some Muslims might interpret this in a 
manner differently than Deputy Prime Minister Clegg. To constantly harp 
on the fact that most Muslims are not violent obscures the reality that,
 well, a good number are.
Is 47 million al Qaeda sympathizers a low number, really?
It’s like those Pew polls that come out every two years showing that most Muslims do not, in fact, support al Qaeda. Last year’s release began:A year after the death of its leader, al Qaeda is widely unpopular among Muslim publics. A new poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted March 19 to April 13, 2012, finds majorities – and mostly large majorities – expressing negative views of the terrorist group in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon.
The media went along with the press release. The Los
 Angeles Times headline was “Muslims in Middle East, Asia think
 poorly of Al Qaeda, poll finds.” U.S.
 News & World Report went with “After bin Laden’s Death, al
 Qaeda’s Popularity Wanes.” CNN’s
 story was “Poll: Many Muslims in Mideast, Pakistan have poor view of al
 Qaeda,” which included this paragraph:
In Pakistan, where U.S. Navy SEALs killed the al Qaeda leader during a raid on a compound a year ago, 55% of the Muslims surveyed had a negative opinion of the terrorist group, according to the poll. Only 13% had a favorable view.
It’s wonderful and important news that the percentage of Muslims in 
five countries who don’t like al Qaeda is as low as it is. But I think 
we forgot to notice that it’s still alarmingly high!
Yes, “only” 21 percent of Egyptian Muslims, 15 percent of Jordanian 
Muslims, 13 percent of Pakistani Muslims, 6 percent of Turkish Muslims 
and 2 percent of Lebanese Muslims express favorable views toward one 
particular terrorist group.
But when you think about how those percentages represent 47,284,049 
Muslims in only five of the 50 countries in which a majority of the 
population is Muslim, it becomes a bit more alarming. The poll doesn’t 
mention support for al Qaeda-linked terrorists in, for example, 
Indonesia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.
Saturday people, Sunday people
We’re talking about Christian persecution by Muslims because of a particularly macabre issue: Jews have already largely been driven out of many Muslim countries.
Lela Gilbert, a journalist who writes about Jewish and Christian 
persecution, tells
 of encountering jihadi graffiti in Jerusalem that read “First comes
 Saturday, then comes Sunday.” She didn’t get the meaning at first. A 
friend explained that it referred to Jews worshiping on Saturday and 
Christians on Sunday and, more subtly, about the order that non-Muslims 
would be targeted.
Gilbert notes that in 1948 there were about 135,000 Jews in Iraq. Now
 there are fewer than a dozen. In 2003, Iraq had a fairly strong 
Christian population. Since 2003, more than half of the 800,000 
Christians have fled church bombings, rapes, torture, kidnapping, 
beheading and house eviction.
Or take Egypt. In 1947 there were about 100,000 Jews there. Today 
there are less than 50, Gilbert says. And Egypt’s Copts — numbering 
about 8 million — are experiencing the worst anti-Christian pogrom in 
700 years. The 30,000 Jews in 1948 Syria are down to less than a dozen. 
It’s the Christians’ turn.
Preparation before the conversation
Before we can have an actual conversation about the persecution of Christians and others at the hands of Muslims, we have to lay some groundwork. Here are some quick thoughts for journalists, politicians and the Christian Church.
Journalists: Many journalists act as if they can’t 
report that acts of violence appear to have some kind of Muslim faith 
behind them because it might inflame anti-Muslim feelings. This 
reportorial approach is paired with an odd desire to hype any act of 
“violence” by Christians. This is why the American media will highlight a
 tiny Florida church burning some Quran while not mentioning that, say, 
the entire Kingdom of Saudia Arabia confiscates all Bibles at customs 
and destroys them.
When and where violence occurs involving Muslims and Christians, as 
it did in Pakistan, Kenya, Syria and Egypt, it is framed as a political 
conflict, with no examination of the religious details. Not only is this
 grievously unfair to the Christians who continue to be slaughtered 
while the rest of the world is busy watching Dancing With The Stars,
 it’s also a disservice to Islam, whose followers are not monolithic in 
their persecution of non-Muslims. Many Muslims themselves are persecuted
 in the name of Muslim violence. To take the most recent example, at 
least 96 people in Iraq were killed this past weekend when a string of 
bombs detonated in short order, targeting Shiite funeral-goers. Muslims 
who defend Christians are a bold lot. Salman Taseer, the Punjab 
governor, was a vocal opponent of anti-blasphemy laws that target 
Christians and other religious minorities. For this, he was assassinated
 in 2011 by his security guard.
It’s not journalists’ job to protect the public from these facts. And
 if it were, it would be impossible. While the media may think they’ve 
done a good job of obscuring part of this reality, most people have 
figured out that a lot of Muslims do support violence as a part of the 
way of Islam. And they’ve figured out as well that a lot of Muslims 
don’t. Both groups can appeal to long traditions within Islam for their 
defense.
It is the job of journalists to convey information about 
local and world events in all their complexity and nuance. While most 
media outlets privilege politics over other cultural factors, 
journalists really need to be cognizant about how ignorance of the role 
of religion harms news gathering. They should make sure their sources 
aren’t just politicians. They should make sure their understanding of 
religion is respectful of the importance it plays in most people’s 
lives.
Politicians: Politicians need to stop giving 
speeches that claim to know the heart of Muslims or the true meaning of 
Islam. It’s offensive and it’s not helping. And if politicians are going
 to give scolding speeches about religious beliefs, here’s a thought: 
Less of condemnation of “those
 who slander the prophet of Islam” and more condemnation of “those 
who slaughter Pakistani Christians coming out of worship.” Without even 
getting into whether there is a foreign policy role to play in the 
persecution of Christians, the American bully pulpit and diplomacy corps
 could stand to speak more clearly about religious violence. The current
 model of apologizing
 for American freedoms is indefensible.
The Christian Church: Whether journalists stop 
downplaying the facts of the persecution of Christians, Christians need 
to stay informed. Even if American politicians respond to Islamist 
violence by apologizing for the freedom of speech and of religion, the 
church must remain vigilant. And many are. The media didn’t quite pick 
up on the significance of the event, but Pope Benedict XVI announced the
 canonization of the Martyrs of Otranto in the same consistory in which 
he announced his intention to resign the papacy. In May, Pope Francis 
canonized the 800 Christians, who were beheaded for their faith after 
Turkish Muslims invaded their city in 1480. In his words, “They had 
refused to renounce their faith and died confessing the risen Christ.”
Most church bodies have prayer guides to help members pray for the persecuted church. And many religious human rights groups work hard to get word out about persecution worldwide. Christians and others interested in stopping religious persecution should ask media outlets to cover news such as the forced conversions, blasphemy persecutions and bombings of Christians.
Most church bodies have prayer guides to help members pray for the persecuted church. And many religious human rights groups work hard to get word out about persecution worldwide. Christians and others interested in stopping religious persecution should ask media outlets to cover news such as the forced conversions, blasphemy persecutions and bombings of Christians.
However much we may wish Muslim violence against Christians would 
resolve itself or go away, being in denial serves no purpose. To combat 
the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities, we must 
first acknowledge its existence. And we need to be clear about exactly 
who is perpetrating violence against Christians and what is motivating 
them.
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment