Are You an Islamophobe?

Fadel Alkilani, a Washington University student, must have spent several hours removing and then trashing nearly 3,000 American flags displayed on the campus to commemorate 9.11.  His reason: “the 9.11 memorial display was ‘incomplete’ because it did nothing to call attention to the victims of Islamophobia in the U.S., or the civilian casualties in the Middle East as a result of American military involvement. "

Do you agree with him?  If not, would Alkilani consider you an Islamophobe because of your view?  Well, you probably haven’t given much thought to it, being inundated with COVID/BLM and all.  While school officials deal with Alkilani’s antics in a duly manner, let me guide your response to the presence of many Muslim living in the States (getting a boost from a sizable addition of Muslims from Afghanistan).  I want to zero in on two particular matters so that we may adhere to a correct sociohistorical understanding respect to conflicts between Islam and "Christian" West: first, whether all Muslims should be looked upon with suspicion; second, whether Christian West has always tried to victimize Muslims (e.g., Crusade)?

In December 2015, on the heels of a deadly mass shooting in Southern California by a radicalized Muslim couple, the then candidate Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until country's representatives can figure out what is going on."  What really concerned the Muslims living in the U.S. was Trump’s suggestion to create a database of them, so as to better track suspicious Muslims and detain the radicalized ones before they strike.  Now, most of us would agree that the threat of violence by radicalized Muslims in America, regardless of their number, is real—unless one is an ideologue who even refuses to use the term “Radical Islam.” The question is, then, whether restraining Muslim immigration and keeping a registry of Muslims in the states is a useful and just measure.

While there isn’t any comparable situation in Scriptures, Esther 3:8-11 can shed some light on the matter.  Haman, a highly ranked official in Persian Empire, who belonged to the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:1-9)—an archenemy of Israel (Deut. 25:17-9)—plotted to single out the Jews and then exterminate them.   While no sane person would dare to equate this situation with ours, one similarity needs to be noted: singling out one group from the larger society because of one’s ethnicity or religion.  Historically, that sort of distinction—such as Hitler singling out the Jews in Germany and Franklin Roosevelt singling out the Japanese in America—has not ended well.  Be that as it may, since American citizens have consented to relinquishing some of their freedom and submitting to the governing authority in exchange for protection, they are within their rights to expect the government to stop playing with words and do something substantial to reduce the possibility of terror.  

So then, what does that mean?  First, it implies that the citizens have the right to expect the government to improve the vetting process to keep the radicalized Muslims from entering the American soil, but without restraining Muslim immigration itself.  Any extra measures taken to ensure this outcome may slow down the immigration process in general, but that is par for the course.  

Second, while preventing every act of terrorism by radicalized Muslims—a real concern considering that Afghanistan has now reverted back to pre-9/11 era—is an impossible task, perhaps, what travelers are told to do in airports can be extended to the society at large: “If you see something, say something.”  Perhaps a hotline can be established to make it easier to report those who make terroristic threats in the name of Allah, after which, the allegations can be vigorously and fairly pursued by the respective agencies.  

Now, with respect to whether Christian West has always tried to victimize (e.g., conquer, imperialize) the Muslim world, one statement found on the Web surely leans toward that direction.  It states,  “Christians have invaded and colonized a dozen Muslim countries in the past 100 years.”  My response to that is why start the discussion from such an arbitrary point; why not begin from the very outset of their clash at the geopolitical level?  Those who want to lay all the blame on Christian West may not want to go there, because it will not fit their revisionist and selective history.  

The first clash between these two groups occurred in the 8th century, when the Moors from North Africa, who had been conquered and converted to Islam by the Saracen Empire (from Middle East), successfully attacked Spain.  They then penetrated as far as central France (Tours) to subject the entire Europe to Islam.  Fortunately for "Christian" Europe, the Islamic empire's advance was thwarted by the Franks, led by Charles Martel, in 732.  Spain, however, would remain under Muslim control for more than 700 years.  The next major clash was the infamous Crusades, beginning from 1095, for which the Roman Catholic Church owes a major apology to the Muslims, Jews and believers of the Eastern Church, since they all fell victims to these misguided and radicalized Christians from Europe.   If you are keeping scores, it is 1:1.

Regarding the third clash between the two, this is how I discovered it:  In 1992, after Bosnia—as part of former Yugoslavia—declared its independence, the Serbs began the campaign to “cleanse” much of the Bosnian territory contiguous with Serbia.  Subsequently, as many as 2 million Bosnians (about 44% being Muslims) were displaced out of Bosnia.  While reading about this, I began wondering how these Eastern Europeans became Muslims in the first place.  I soon learned that after the Ottoman Turks conquered the Serbs (including Bosnia in 1463), they forced the conversions of the Bosnian nobility, which one author described as “unusually harsh.”  Over the years, while one group of Serbs became Muslims, the rest continued to be part of the Orthodox Church.  The fourth round of their conflict occurred when European countries such as England and France occupied Iraq and Syria, respectively, at the behest of the League of Nations after World War I.  This event and the Crusades, then, are selectively cited by the critics of the church to present Christianity in its worst light.  Presently, the fifth round of their ongoing conflict (including the 9/11 and the military response thereafter by America) is played out on the soils of Europe and America through terrorism carried out by radicalized Muslims.  

So, are you keeping scores?  No, let's not do that.  Instead, since we follow Christ who taught us to “love your enemies,” let us love Muslims, most of whom are our neighbors, not enemies. That's what I observed during my multiple trips to several Islamic countries over the years.  I can assure you that no one needs to have irrational fear of Muslims because they, like those in the West, are concerned primarily with the mundane things of life, such as being able to put food on the table everyday.  Nonetheless, radicalized Muslims do exist and a tiny percentage of them amid 1.8 billion Muslims around the globe translates to millions who seek to inflict harm on the West.  Being concerned about that threat and wanting the government to take reasonable measures in response, is not being Islamophobic.  Meanwhile, we pray for a safer America for all law-abiding citizens—which certainly include Muslims (except for radicalized ones) whom God of the Bible cares for (Acts 14:17) and loves (Jn. 3:16).