By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

Jerry Falwell found himself in the middle of a furor once again after saying to a CBS interviewer on 60 Minutes, "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war. In my opinion, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed set an opposite example."

Falwell's comments resulted in many people, Muslim and non-Muslim, calling him a racist, a bigot and an ignorant man. Some people in the United States are calling for some sort of sanction against Christian fundamentalists in terms of denying them freedom of speech, on the basis that their comments endanger U.S. citizens around the globe.

Within a week, an Iranian Muslim leader, Ayatollah Mohsen Mujtahed Shabestari, called for the death of Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, all of whom have preached against Islam.

Later, Falwell apologized for the statements, saying, "I sincerely apologize that certain statements of mine made during an interview for the September 30 edition of CBS's 60 Minutes were hurtful to the feelings of many Muslims. I intended no disrespect to any sincere, law-abiding Muslim."

When we consider whether Falwell's attack was right, we must understand that whether anyone is offended by the comments is beside the point. The truth offends people every day. Sometimes simply telling the truth puts a person in danger of violent attacks. When an individual threatens violence over something said, it is because they lack any intelligent rejoinder to a statement that insults them but contains some degree of unassailable truth.

Whether Falwell himself apologized also has no bearing on whether he was right to say what he said. If he can be wrong to say something, surely he can also be wrong for apologizing for saying something.

In evaluating whether it was right for Falwell to say this, I think we have to look at three factors. First and foremost, is what he said true? Second, what was the motive for saying such a thing? Third, what are the intended and actual results of the words, and are these results consistent with the Christian mission?

There can be no doubt that Mohammed was a conqueror and a man of war. This does not make him a terrorist; a more accurate summation would be to admit that he was a skilled general. A terrorist is a person who uses violence as coercion in an attempt make an existing government bend to his political agenda, not a person who establishes his own government or takes on the responsibility of actually ruling a people. The terrorist's agenda is far too narrow to comprise all the necessary aspects of leadership.

I will provide a very brief, sketchy history of Mohammed. He was a businessman who was given to prayer and fasting, whose commercial ventures took him into the lands of Jews and Christians where he picked up a degree of understanding of those faiths. When he was forty, he believed he had been visited by the angel Gabriel and given a call to be the prophet of Allah. He had about forty converts before his preaching among the heathen of Mecca drew persecution, causing him to flee to Medina. In Medina he was considered to be a prophet of God, and the number of his followers increased. He went to war with his enemies, conquering several Arabian, Jewish and Christian tribes before returning to Mecca with an invading force. He destroyed the idols of Kaaba, and became the master of Arabia, unifying the tribes under one religion.

In a sense, then, what Mohammed actually did is basically what the Jews expected their Messiah to do, which is to provide a sort of political salvation to one group of people and unify that people under one religion. (How wonderful it is that the real Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, had a goal that was so much larger than that, to make salvation possible for all people, Jews and Gentiles, and not only in a passing way like a political salvation, but an eternal salvation that lets us live forever with God!)

Various histories sprung up long after Mohammed was dead, and many of these contain a great deal of fictional contrivance. The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Mohammed comments, "Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime."

So we see here that the actions of an Ayatollah Mohsen Mujtahed Shabestari are quite in line with what we would have expected from Mohammed, except Mohammed probably was astute enough not to announce to his intended victims that he was trying to assassinate them!

Technically, Falwell's statement is actually true in that he says, "I think Mohammed was a terrorist," assuming it is truly what he thinks, which is perhaps somewhat doubtful since he did not stand by his statement but apologized. Regardless of that, Falwell's beliefs about Mohammed being a "terrorist" were not correct and should not have been said. Mohammed cannot be classed a terrorist any more than one would class Napoleon or Hitler "terrorists." But Mohammed definitely was a man of war.

Some of Jerry Falwell's further comments seem to indicate a political agenda as his motive. Of fellow Christians, he said, "There are 70 million of us,[and] there's nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel on a critical matter."

Jerry Falwell, then, made these comments to draw a distinction between his religious beliefs and those of Muslims, and use this difference as a basis for supporting the Jews against them. But he forgets that his view of Christ is also totally irreconcilable with the view of the Jews. At least the Muslims view Jesus as a valid prophet, even though they fail to accept His own testimony that He is the Son of God. The Jews do not even give Jesus that much credit. They think Jesus Christ was an out-and-out deceiver.

For these reasons, I can't honestly understand why Christians would be firmly behind either faction in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Both sides are hostile to Christianity. In Israel, I understand, it is against the law for Christians to preach to Jews about Jesus Christ. If the Muslims were in control, it would probably still be illegal, and possibly even more physically dangerous to preach Christ, because many Muslim states are given to executing Christians. The support of Christians for either side in the conflict, then, seems senseless.

The question then is, why do some Christians seem to think Israel is so important? It is suggested by commentators that Israel's significance to Christians such as Falwell comes from its role in prophecy. The notion apparently is that the Jews must take over sole control of Jerusalem as a precondition of Christ's second coming.

If that is the case, I can't even conceive of how Jerry Falwell's own theology could support such a notion. Falwell, being a fundamental Baptist, is most likely a believer in premillennialism, and as such, he is looking forward to an event in which the "abomination of desolation" appears in the holy place, a place he understands to be the temple in Jerusalem.

Supposing that Falwell's view of events is correct, let's look at Jesus' own words concerning it. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:15-21).

Jesus Himself speaks of this abomination of desolation standing in the holy place as an inevitability. He issues no call to try to prevent that from happening, and certainly not to take up arms to try to prevent it. In fact, His command for His people in Judea is to flee, not to stay and fight.

Why would Jerry Falwell want to make people disobey the direct command of Jesus Christ?

Whatever interpretation of Scripture Jerry is following, he is falling prey to a rather common evangelical notion that we need to help God along in His prophetic plans, even though we personally are not clear on what those plans entail.

When will the church ever do simply what it is commanded to do, which is to reach the world with the gospel of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ? We are called to be foot soldiers, not to be generals. God doesn't need our strategic help. He simply desires us to do what He has commanded us to do, and meddling in politics is simply outside the scope of His commands.

As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). We are not given a mandate by Christ to fight wars on His behalf in this world. Even if we were, I am sure it would not be to take sides with His enemies.

The intended result of these words is quite obvious; it is to demonize the Muslims in the Palestinian conflict, so the United States will keep helping the Israelis in their conflict with them. Ultimately, the notion is to keep a nation that is considered to be Christian, the United States, as a part of a conflict between Jews and Muslims.

I must confess that I have some sympathy for the Jews, and I understand their angry reaction to the attacks of the Palestinian terrorists. However, I think the cycle of retribution that goes on in that land is foolish, and I think it is silly for us to get involved in any way, for either side.

We have a commandment to keep clear of such retribution. Paul writes, "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men" (1 Thessalonians 5:15).

The Jews also have Scripture that condemns the way they are handling this situation. Proverbs 20:22 says, "Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee."

We should not, as Christians, be counseling people to do things that are contrary to the commandments of Scripture.

As we have seen, the reaction has been negative toward Christian fundamentalists among both Muslims around the world and secularists within the United States. These are all people who need to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. But repentance is made so much more difficult for people who have been offended by the attitudes of Christians.

We have to oppose error and stand for the truth, which will of course offend people who are in error. That much is unavoidable. But we have to do this in a way that what we are standing for is really the truth. I believe that if we stand for the truth, people will be able to embrace our message, but if we stand for a mixture of truth and error, the error will make a seeker of truth reject our whole message. That is why I so greatly oppose ecumenism and its inherent agreement to overlook doctrinal error. The slightest error makes seekers of the truth reject our message. We need to speak accurately when we speak so that people can fully let go of error when they embrace the truth.

There may be sound political grounds for Jerry Falwell's stance. If so, he should get involved in politics so that the American public can hold him accountable for his decisions and his representation of America.

We can be sure that, as representatives of God, God will hold us all accountable for our representation of Him. This is even more true for Christian teachers like Falwell. James 3:1 says, "My brethren, be not many masters [meaning, teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."

I so wish that Jerry Falwell, who is an excellent preacher when he's actually preaching the truth about Jesus Christ, would leave his political agendas behind, as all they serve to do is introduce error to his message and turn off people who might otherwise be seeking Jesus Christ.

Was Falwell's Attack Right? is Copyright (c) 2002 by Compass Distributors
All Scripture taken from the King James Version.