17 February 2007

On The Rise Of Islam...

This is the other essay from the exam. Again, I am far from an expert. I'm not even sure if all my thoughts are correct. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!


The rise of Islam can be explained by a couple key factors. From the leadership abilities of Muhammed to the lack of necessity for contextualization, the religion and way of life had an advantage from the beginning.

In the time of Muhammed there was no religion that was uniquely Arab. This made it more easily spread in the long run. But when Muhammed first started to introduce his teachings they were not accepted except by a small minority of people. He and his followers were chased out of their hometown and spent ten years building his following in Medina, their new home which they had captured by force. It was an unlikely victory and created the first Islamic State. During this time Muhammed grew to be a great leader and military power. He, at last, rallied his followers and they returned to Mecca, where they quickly overtook the city and claimed in the name of Islam. Muhammed led his men across the Arabian peninsula, uniting the Arab peoples under one common rule of law and religion, Islam.

After Muhammed's death Islam continued to spread. It started to move west but the Turkish Nomads overtook it within the first 100 years and they set up their own government. But it did spread east. Christians throughout the area were more than willing to accept it for a number of reasons. First, it brought with it a local ruler. The area of southern Persia had been ruled by the Byzantines in the west. But many people felt that someone so far away couldn't possibly understand what was going on locally and therefore couldn't rule effectively. And they were somewhat oppressive toward Christians. When Muslims came into the area they set up a local government which was more effective in leadership. Secondly, because Christians and Jews were seen as “people of the book” they were treated well. They were no longer oppressed but rather there was religious tolerance for them.

Islamic Rule had many strengths. Beyond those already stated (ie. local government, religious tolerance), it brought with it good moral law that had been lacking in the area. There was more security and safety for it's followers and their “brothers,” as they called the Christians and Jews.

Even though it can be challenging to witness to Muslims today, because of their good moral law and basic foundational religious beliefs that coincide with basic Christian doctrines, it has provided us with a door to reach them with the gospel. We don't have to start at the ground level we would have had to start at for the Zoroastrian peoples that were previously ruling the area. I would say that it was a good thing Islam took over.


Not in the original essay but should be noted: the following is a response to an argument against the final thoughts of my essay -- specifically the fact that a Islam has made it easier to witness. The argument was that it is easier to witness to a heathen than a muslim.


There is a big difference in gospel presentation between a Muslin and your average heathen. But when it comes to Islam, a Muslim doesn't need to be convinced of the most basic foundational pronciples (ie. There is a God and only one, Jesus Christ did exsist - although the details they have of Him are sketchy, God is sovereign and wrathful and deserving of our attention and devotion, etc). The basic framework is there! Even a heathen has a belief. It may be that we evolved or that there are multiple gods or that all religions will take you to heaven. They can be just as hard or harder to witness to than a Muslim.

The problem is that we Americans have no idea how to approach a muslim -- especially since 9/11. We look at them like they have two heads or like any minute they are going to pull out a gun and kill us. We don't see what we have in common but rather the differences that divide us. There are so many bridges built between Christians and Muslims that if we knew enough of the Quran and what it teaches, and enough of our Bible and what it teaches, we wouldn't have such a bad attitude toward witnessing to them (I don't point the finger at you at this point. I point it at Evangelical Christendom). The American church has written off Muslims as "unreachable" for so long. But the truth of the matter is that they are only unreachable as much as we are unwilling to go to them.

Witnessing to a Muslim is no different that witnessing to your next door neighbor who was raised Catholic. We have to build a relationship with them and come to them humbly and with a culturally relevant mindest.

2 comments:

Ryan said...

Laura, great blog. Concerning your essay, the Turks did not completely destroy the Abbasid empire until 1258 (see Moffett, page 377). Also, Syria, Palastine, and Southern Persia were all under Persian rule in the seventh century. Overall, I like your essay. It is good to see what I missed and what others think. You said that Muslims called Christians and Jews 'brothers,' do you have a source for that?

Dan said...

Great essay. I had a religious discussion with my Muslim friend and we agreed on so much, yet the one essential difference is that he believes in reaching Heaven by works, and we by grace. I didn't have anything to say to convince him of my position, and that was that.