There’s Nothing ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ in Terrorism

Lebanese Gen. Michel Aoun’s reported remarks concerning the potential political value of “Christian terrorism” in seizing American hostages clearly succeeded in getting the undivided attention of American policy-makers. Within hours, U.S. Embassy personnel packed up belongings, shredded sensitive documents and departed Lebanon.

Aoun now asserts that Figaro, the French newspaper, reported “hearsay” and “half truths” when it quoted him. But the words have taken on a life of their own. On the surface, they reflect widespread anger and frustration over ambiguous U.S. policy in Lebanon. At a deeper level, the jarring words speak volumes about image, reality and the perception of religious communities in the Lebanese conflict. The episode illustrates how facile group associations confuse issues and mock the value systems that make a better future possible.

The use of “Christian” as a modifier for “terrorism” represents a new variation on a common theme. For years, most Western journalists covering Lebanon have casually used religious affiliations as adjectives. We read almost daily about “Muslim” West Beirut, “Christian” or “Druze” or “Shiite” militias; at times we are told of “Muslim” bombs being detonated. Now, Aoun himself appears to have employed this unhelpful shorthand.

The current, perverse adjectival use of “Christian” must not go unchallenged. By definition, the act of seizing innocent people as hostages, or even a rhetorical threat to do so, cannot be “Christian.” Can anyone seriously imagine Jesus gathering his disciples together to hatch such a plot?

The popular image today has Aoun and his followers (“the Christians”) pitted against a conglomerate of Syrian-controlled Sunni, Shiite and Druze groups (“the Muslims”). Some Lebanese deliberately perpetuate this inaccurate image to win external support for their own factions.

Such simplistic categorizations do not square with reality. While the dynamics between confessional groupings have played a significant role, the strife in Lebanon cannot be characterized simply as a religious conflict. Political, economic and social factors figure prominently into the peculiar Lebanese equation, as does the destabilizing impact of multiple interventions by various regional and global powers. Consider the following elements of the Lebanese reality:

--Aoun’s so-called “Christian” military forces include substantial numbers of Lebanese Muslims. His appeal to Lebanese nationalism and commitment to see Syrian troops out of Lebanon has struck a chord among a cross section of the citizenry.

--Aoun’s primary external military support in 1989 has come from Iraq, a government hardly motivated by a concern for the admittedly fragile position of Christian communities; on the other, so-called “Muslim” side, Syria, a secularist government, is the major actor. The Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians and French also continue to play complicated roles.

--Maronite Christians in Lebanon, from which Aoun and most Christian Lebanese political leaders come, comprise the largest, but by no means the only Christian community. Armenian, Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox communities as well as Greek Catholic and various Protestant traditions are also present. Neither current nor past political alliances combine Lebanese Christians in any neat pattern.

Christians are not alone in being unfairly categorized; Muslims are stereotyped even more frequently by casual, sometimes deliberate manipulation of language. We ought not remain silent when distorted images of Islam are perpetuated through glib descriptions of “Muslim” terrorism or “Shiite” car bombs.

The image of Islam in the West differs dramatically from its reality as a dynamic tradition, inspiring and nurturing hundreds of millions of adherents for centuries. Without question, the actions of extremists serve to reinforce longstanding fears of Islam and perpetuate stereotypes of Muslims as violent and menacing. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims around the world are as offended by a violent act carried out in the name of Islam as most Christians are by a violent act carried out in the name of Christianity in Northern Ireland, or, for that matter, as most Jews were horrified by the violent actions of those who planted bombs in the cars of West Bank mayors.

History is filled with chilling examples of violence, even slaughter, in the name of God. But, these acts should not be equated with their religious traditions, even if their perpetrators claim to take inspiration from their faith. Such individuals and groups comprise a part of the mosaic, but they are not representative of the moral and ethical teachings of their religious communities, all of which have stood the test of time. Surely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam--intimately linked by history and theology--call their adherents to a much higher standard of behavior and relationships than violent extremists exemplify.

The only viable road to the future for the Middle East--as for many other regions--lies in pluralist societies where the rights of all communities are respected. For Lebanon to turn back in that direction, Christians, Muslims and Druze will have to behave and relate to one another in ways worthy of the religious faiths they profess.