Oh Really?

We'll Destroy Them

"You've got to have boots on the ground. It doesn't have to be American boots on the
ground, but you have got to have people on the ground who can identify targets and
who can help us develop the kind of effective air strikes that are going to be needed if
we're going to be able to undermine, destroy this vicious enemy that we're dealing
with," he said. These are the words of former USA Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as
he is being interviewed with regard to his book Worthy Fights (CBS, Face the Nation,
12/10/2014).
Islamic Human Rights Commission chairman Massoud Shadjareh said: "US
intervention in Iraq has led the country into a sectarian and ethnic quagmire in which
groups like IS thrive. The strategy of bombing them into oblivion hasn't worked
before and there is no reason to believe it will work now" (11/10/2014).
The military weapon which can destroy a worldview and its adherents has yet to be
invented. The Caesars of ancient Rome could not do it with lions, spears, and arrows
as they sought to kill Christians in their day. In fact, the more fiercely Christians were
persecuted, the more strongly the Church grew. It grew because, firstly, those
observing Christians under persecution became curious and impressed when they saw
the unyielding steadfastness. Secondly, it grew because persecution worked like a
pebble thrown in a lake causing ripples to fan out far and wide, that is Christians
would be spread to the outer reaches of the then known world. As this happened,
those Christians took their convictions with them and affected even more people.
The Spanish world empire strove to destroy Protestant beliefs and restore Roman
Catholicism with fire and sword in the Netherlands. Eighty years of relentless
persecution ended with the founding of a new state in which freedom of religion
became a foundationally held government rule, with the Spanish defeatedly licking
their wounds. Strongly held convictions held out against muskets and torture.
Love them or hate them, but the final solution to Muslim extremism is not to be found
in air raids and on battle fields. Certainly, the organised bands of terrorists may appear
defeated at some point, but the result will only be a bloody guerilla warfare which will
continue underground as extreme, fundamental adherents to that worldview blend in
with the general population and receive funding and training in secret, inaccessible
parts of the world.
Boko Haram (Western education is forbidden), officially called (Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna
Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad (People Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation
and Jihad), is a militant Islamist movement based in north-east Nigeria. It is a Sunni
Islamic sect dedicated to enforcing strict sharia law, a law which to the believers is the
infallible law of God which must be obeyed. The Governor of Borno in Nigeria is
quoted in February, 2014, as saying,"Boko Haram is better armed and is better
motivated than our own troops. Given the present state of affairs, it is absolutely
impossible for us to defeat Boko Haram." The key in his statement is the word
'motivated.' The group holds an inner conviction that it is doing the will of God and to
die in that pursuit means only great reward in the hereafter. (The Islamic State fighters
in Syria are actually more afraid of the female Kurds which are engaged in combat
than of the men, because they believe that dying in battle at the hand of a woman is so

shameful that entry to heaven is forfeited! Apart from that, they willingly die for the
cause.)
Following ISIS' demands that Muslims around the world
declare their allegiance to the caliphate, some already appear to
be doing so. This photograph, apparently taken in the
Netherlands, has been shared online by ISIS supporters

The problem faced by those who wish to take the sword to these Islam worldview
adherents is that many political leaders and members of law enforcement in a number
of Muslim dominated countries privately agree with the goals set by such groups and
only organise token effort to establish judicial equality for all citizens. They can agree
because the ideologues behind the movements derive their justification from the
Koran and the Prophet's example. This is also why thousands of Muslims worldwide
heed the call to join. Laskar Jihad, Warriors of Jihad, a now disbanded group in
Indonesia, aimed to set up an Islamic theocracy in that country. Officials turned a
blind eye to the group's activities and even showed support. Mark Drurie in his book
The Third Choice, reports that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was Indonesia's top
political and security minister when he said, They play a role in defending truth and
justice that is expected by Muslims in Indonesia. For me, as far as what they are doing
is legal and not violating the law, then this is OK. This group would practise its
combat skills on local Christians and Hindus and would, after the attacks, boast of its
exploits on its website. Furthermore, as expressed in speeches by political leaders in
the West, usually informed by Islamic spokesmen, Islam is lauded as one of the
world's great and benevolent expressions of humankind, in which extremists are
seen as an aberration. The ambivalence evidenced in the aforesaid muddies the waters
and confuses strategies of political deployment (whatever form this may take).
This author has often wondered why many Islamic nations would bite the hands that
feed them as Western nations pour billions of dollars into those nations while
vilification of the West continues. The key is found in the statement made by
Professor Moshe Sharon (in The Third Choice, Drurie M.), The billions of dollars
which stream from the European Union to Muslim terror groups under various
disguises are nothing less than Jizyah money (tribute money paid to Muslims to
prevent jihad attack under dhimmitude, a pact of surrender and protection from death
2

granted by Muslims to non-Muslims) by the dhimmis of Europe to the Muslim rulers.

European money is the collective Jizyah paid by the Europeans in the (false) hope that
it will secure for them the protected status of the dhimmi (non-Muslim living under
Muslim rule). Basically, in Muslim understanding, the West merely pays what it
owes for the right to exist and gratitude would be misplaced.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish politician and philosopher, famously said, The
only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. The
dilemma is what to do when a worldview expresses itself ideologically to the extreme
that multitudes of people suffer and die as a consequence and moreover a worldview
to which freedom of religion is anathema. Fighting fire with fire may be a short term
solution step, but will not address the root cause and engender a long-term, let alone
permanent, solution. Let it be clear that, for Christians, it is Biblical to defend one's
home and life as made clear by Biblical case studies (Israel defending itself against
invaders) and as stated in Exodus 22:2.If a thief be found breaking up, and be
smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. As such, military action
against destructive terrorist forces which threaten one's country is completely
justifiable.
But for the individual Christian, and the Church in general, another consideration is to
rule as well. The Apostle Paul writes, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). For though we walk
in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down
imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,
and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; the Lord tells us
in 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. The long term key is a difficult one to handle on a human
level and needs the Hand of God on His people, because the answer is 'to take every
thought captive' by reaching out to those with a different worldview and witness to
them about Christ. Many a Muslim-born person has become Christian, risking death
and ostracism in his or her society. (Sharia law dictates that some one born a Muslim
will always be a Muslim.) Christ, His love and His truth, are attractive to those who
live under the harsh, works-salvation regime of other convictions. On the other hand,
seeing the debauchery of Western societies (associated, however wrongly, with
Christianity) causes seriously raised eyebrows with those who strive for purity (as
they see it) according to the Prophet's dictates.
Yet, for all this, the only hope for a groaning world and a divided humanity is to be
found in the One Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), through Whom
only reconciliation with God and peace on earth can be achieved, Jesus Christ, God
the Son (John 5:18). Proverbs 16:24 reads, There is a way that seemeth right unto a
man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. The only way of life is the way set
forth by Christ. He is the 'narrow gate,' all others are the road to destruction. Enter ye
in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it (Matthew
7:13-14). Those who find it do so more often than not through the instrumentality of
Christians as God sees fit to use them. Time spent by the Church in praying for
mission work in general and mission work to the Muslim believers in particular is
3

time well spent to alter the worldview compass needle slowly and aim it in the lifesaving direction where the fount of living water is found.
John W. Morehead (the Custodian of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for
Religious Diplomacy; http://www.christianitytoday.com/) puts forth the following
three points regarding dealings with extremist behaviour born from another
worldview:
First, we need to ask ourselves: 'What would Jesus do?' in response to such
violence,whether religiously motivated or not. In the recent history of the church we
have tended to embrace theories of 'just war' as ethical justification for armed conflict,
but perhaps it is time for us to step back and take a fresh look at Jesus teachings
again. He taught that his disciples should be peacemakers (Mat. 5:9), and advocated
active peacemaking in his life and ministry in connection with the gospel, particularly
in Luke (Luke 1:79; 2:14; 7:50; 10:5-6; 19:38, 42; 24:36). In addition, he taught that
those who follow him should love their enemies (Mat. 5:43-48).
Second, we need to develop a greater sense of religious literacy, and encourage an
informed faith-based diplomacy among our national leaders. [The Apostle Paul
declares, I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. It is
important to understand the people with whom you are dealing and get alongside
them in order to establish meaningful communication.]
Finally, we need to take steps to build relationships with those in other religions
around us, particularly Muslims. Although stepping out like this may be a frightening
prospect, it can be done while maintaining our Evangelical convictions. This can
involve sharing our faith but it is also far more than that. It means we love them and
care for them regardless of whether they ever embrace the gospel message. It means
that we extend grace, compassion, and empathy. The challenge of religiouslymotivated terrorism and other acts of violence around the world provide Evangelicals
with an opportunity to be ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) as we live at peace
with everyone (Romans 12:18) and pursue the ministry of reconciliation (1 Cor. 5:1819).
In his well-intended statements John Morehead makes the common error of confusing
between individual relationships as addressed in Scripture on the one hand and the
protective, governing role of the authorities in a country on the other. Having made
that salient critical observation, it may be acknowledged that he is on to important
relational principles for successful interaction with those holding to another
worldview on a person-to-person level. Individual Christians do well to take note of
these guidelines in order to reach out. However, when it comes to the governing
authorities it is important to remember, as stated earlier with the justification of
Exodus 22:2, that the authorities are duty-bound to protect their citizens from deadly
aggression. In terms of immediacy, violent attacks on inhabitants of whichever
countries need to be rebuffed by the governments concerned; countries are justified in
organising a defence against aggressors. On a personal level, Christians are called to
be winsome and show the wonder of Christ to those of different convictions 'so as to
win some' (1 Corinthians 9:22).
Going back to the statements by Leon Panetta and Massoud Shadjareh it is needful to
assess which one of the two holds the correct view. On first glance they appear to
4

contradict each other, but when viewed in the correct context both have a measure of
rightness.
If Panetta's view is regarded in the context of the exercise of civil authority, there is
justification for attacking and destroying an enemy in defence of the country and its
citizens. Properly used, the military protects civil life within which a generally
peaceful existence is possible. A key responsibility of the civil government is to
protect its citizens from attack by wrongdoers. This involves punishing those who
break the law. It also involves defending the nation from every attacker, be he
external or internal (cf. Romans 13:1-8). However, it will always be problematic to
engage one country's forces in another country's battles (Israel was rebuked for
engaging ungodly Egypt for war support as made clear in Isaiah 36:6; the nation of
Switzerland does not need others for defence as the entire nation has as its civil duty
to go military if needed thereby being very close in application to the Biblical
principle of national defence; however, this issue would warrant a separate treatise).
Joining another country's battle goes beyond defending one's own country against
enemies or anarchists (which would include those who incite to war and revolt). This
aspect casts a shadow over Panetta's particular application, even though the general
principle (civil authority defending the nation and its citizens) still holds.
Contextually, therefore, civil authorities must act decisively where deadly enemies
threaten the nation and its inhabitants.
Massoud Shadjareh is also correct when considering how to deal with a particular
worldview and its adherents. This is where the Biblically caring approach between
neighbours and the Christian dictum to love one's enemies (Matthew 5:44) need to
come to the fore. Such a mission will only boast a measure of success when a
winsome approach is used by Christians towards those of a different worldview
(invite your neighbours to dinner). The picture of Ezekiel 47:1-11 is encouraging in
that context, as the waters flow out from the Temple and bring healing wherever they
flow. Contextually, therefore, positive engagement on the basis of Biblical love and
truth expressed are the weapons of warfare to wade with a measure of
accomplishment through Shadjareh's sectarian and ethnic quagmire.
The terrible thing about terrorism is that ultimately it destroys those who practice it.
Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies
(Terry Waite - English humanitarian and author, famous as a hostage in Lebanon
1987-91).

Dr Herm Zandman
22/10/201