One of the reasons why we have such difficulty in responding to issues related to Islam is that we find it hard to distinguish between "Islam' (the whole system of beliefs and the way of life of 1.3 billion Muslims), "Islamism' (Islamic Fundamentalism " sometimes called Revivalist, Radical, Activist or Political Islam), and "Islamic terrorism' (terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam). As a result of the failure to make these distinctions, many suggest, for example, that terrorism carried out by Muslims is a natural expression of Islamic beliefs.

If we are to avoid giving false testimony against our neighbour (Exodus 20:16), it is essential that Christians should allow Muslims to define themselves and therefore recognise that most Muslims would want to distinguish between "Muslims', "Islamists' and "Muslim/Islamist terrorists'. While the parallel is not exact, one could say that a Muslim studying terrorism in Northern Ireland in recent years would similarly have needed to distinguish between Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church and the IRA.

Ishtiaq Ahmed, a Muslim leader in Bradford, estimated in 2001 that around 15 per cent of British Muslims could be called "Islamist' or "Radical', 15 per cent Liberal or Modernist, while the remaining 70 per cent could be described as Traditionalist or Orthodox.3 Although some recent polls have given a higher proportion for Islamists, it is clear that they are still a minority, and that those among them who approve of violence in the name of Islam would therefore be a minority within a minority. Many Muslims dissociate themselves completely from the militants and terrorists.

There are significant numbers of British Muslims, however, who would not actively support the use of violence, but would not openly condemn it. And many would argue that if violence cannot be justified in the British context, it can be justified in certain other contexts like Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel/Palestine. Neat categories with clear labels do not fit this debate, and even among Islamists there is a wide spectrum of approaches from moderates (in sympathy, for example, with the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain) to extremists (like Hizb ut-Tahrir, Supporters of Sharee'ah and the Saved Sect).

Christian responses to Islamism and "Islamic terrorism'

These are some important principles in trying to determine what might be a genuinely Christian response.

Address the theological issues

Christians who have a high view of Scripture cannot fail to notice that Muslims have similar beliefs about the authority of the Qur'an, and that moderate, mainstream Muslims as well as Islamist terrorists base their beliefs on its authority.

Christians will therefore want to ask: what does the Qur'an really say on the subject of violence? They are likely to point to Qur'anic verses which call for armed struggle against unbelievers, and argue that while there is something similar in parts of the Old Testament (e.g. in Joshua), there is absolutely nothing comparable to these verses in the teaching of Jesus or in the rest of the New Testament.

But where do we go from here? According to some Christians, recent history simply proves that there is something essentially violent about Islam because, as some would argue, "there is a virus of violence in the Qur'an. How can you argue against "holy writ", or go against "the greatest examplar" for mankind, Muhammad himself, or disregard that Islam was birthed in violence, was perpetrated in violence, and has a 1400-year history steeped in violence?'

An alternative approach is for Christians to recognise that, while they can make their own judgements about the Qur'an from a Christian perspective, they have no right to tell Muslims how the Qur'an should be interpreted. If Christians don't like Muslims telling them how they should interpret the Bible, they shouldn't try to tell Muslims how to interpret the Qur'an. Christians must therefore recognise that while some Islamist terrorists use Qur'anic verses calling for violence as a theological justification for terrorism, many orthodox Muslims and Islamists totally reject this way of interpreting the Qur'an. There is a convincing logic that lies behind both these ways of interpreting the Qur'an, because both are based on accepted principles of interpretation. Both groups are singing from the same hymn-sheet, but singing very different tunes. Christians therefore need to be cautious about claiming that one approach or the other is the only way of interpreting the Qur'an.

Recognise the importance of the political issues

A number of Christian writers today argue that the problems associated with Islamism and "Islamic terrorism' are fundamentally problems related to Islamic scripture and theology and therefore play down the significance of political issues as a major reason for the anger of Muslims.

The other possible approach is to recognise that political issues have been highly significant in the development of Islamism and need to be taken seriously in trying to understand the anger that lies at the heart of the violence in the name of Islam.

Wahhabi ideas were taken from Arabia to the Indian subcontinent in the nineteenth century and, having motivated many Muslims in their struggle against the British Raj from then into the twentieth century, have continued to inspire resistance among Muslims to any and every form of imperialism.

Anthony McRoy's detailed account of the development of Islamism in Britain in From Rushdie to 7/7: the Radicalisation of Islam in Britain traces the process through a series of crises, beginning with the Rushdie Affair in 1988, then on to the Gulf Crisis of 1990"91, Bosnia (beginning in 1991), then on to 9/11 in 2001 and 7/7 in 2005. He concludes: "In order to understand the radicalisation of the British Muslim community as a whole, as well as the emergence of specific radical groups within it, we have to understand the impact of several crises upon the community, how they affected the self-identity, assertiveness and organisation of British Muslims, and indeed the psychological impact of the crises.'25 This means that the history of Western imperialism and contemporary issues like the Israeli"Palestinian conflict and the occupation of Iraq must be recognised as just as important as the theological issues.

Support moderate Muslims in challenging Islamist interpretations of Islamic sources

Christians will naturally want to point to the differences between Jesus, who was willing to go to the cross, and Muhammad, who took up the sword to protect himself and extend his rule. They will also want to draw attention to the differences between the first three hundred years of Christianity, in which Christians were a powerless and sometimes persecuted minority and the first three hundred years of Islam which witnessed the spread of Islamic rule through conquest over the whole of the Middle East and North Africa.

Muslims, however, are quick to point to many examples in the history of Christianity " like the Crusades and the conquest of Latin America " where the Christian faith has been closely identified with power and where Christians have used the sword not only to defend but also to extend their rule. Drawing attention to the example of Jesus, therefore, needs to be supported by a critical view of Christian history and an honest recognition of the contemporary issues which have fuelled the anger of Muslims.

In this kind of situation Christians should be willing to support those Muslims who challenge the harsher Islamist interpretations of the Qur'an. Instead of suggesting that "the Qur'an is essentially violent', Christians should listen to the internal debate between moderate and extremist Muslims and add whatever weight they can to support Muslims who challenge the more violent interpretations of the Qur'an, and who do so from within Islam.

Find a middle path between demonisation of Islam and naive political correctness

Many Christians feel that if they condemn the naivety of many secular people (and some Christians) who are willing to give in to Muslim demands/requests, the only alternative is to demonise Islam and take a hard line on every public issue related to Islam.

A middle way between these two extremes would mean (a) being realistic about the real intentions of some Muslims, (b) recognising the diversity among Muslims and relating to them as individuals and groups with openness and honesty, (c) taking a firm stand on issues of human rights, (d) working for the common good of the whole society, (e) demonstrating a fundamental respect for Islam (without agreeing with all its teaching), and (f) unapologetically commending the Christian faith through word and deed.

Recognise the role that Christians can play as peacemakers

One of the major problems in Western democracies is that since the link between religion and state has either been totally severed or become almost meaningless, Western governments find themselves at a loss in dealing with Muslims and Islam. Secular politicians can take strong measures to safeguard the rights of every community and to protect their countries from terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. But they simply don't have the worldview or the language to enable them to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Muslims who want to bring God into the public sphere.

In this situation Western Christians may have a significant role as interpreters, because they ought to be able to understand and sympathise with both sides " with God-fearing Muslims on the one hand (with whom they share many moral values) and secular Westerners on the other (because this is the world in which they have been living). If there is genuine trust between Christians and Muslims, Christians may be able to act as peacemakers and bridge-builders.

Challenge and dissociate ourselves from Christian Zionism

One-sided Western (and especially American) support for Israel is at the top of the list of grievances of all Islamists and most Muslims, and they are frequently baffled and appalled by the unquestioning support that is often given to Israel by Christians.

Christian Zionism, therefore, needs to be challenged publicly by Christians who can both point out the negative effects of onesided support for Israel and present an alternative and more convincing way of interpreting the Bible in relation to the Israeli"Palestinian conflict.

Reach out to Muslims out of respect and love rather than out of fear

When Christians hear stories of the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries and are aware of the goals of many Islamists, it is understandable that they begin to be afraid of Islam and be suspicious of the intentions of all Muslims. As a result they are often paralysed by fear, and want to have as little to do with Muslims as possible. They feel they must "stand in the gap' publicly against Islam, as some Christian leaders are calling them to do, but have little idea of how to relate to their Muslim neighbours or respond to local and national issues concerning Muslims.

Their fear can also inhibit them from sharing their faith with Muslims.

A more healthy approach is to see Muslims not as people to be feared and resisted, but as neighbours to be loved (Matthew 19:19; 22:39). If and when we are able to build relationships of trust, we may have the opportunity to ask the difficult questions.

Without a relationship of trust and an attitude of respect from our side ("do this with gentleness and respect', 1 Peter 3:16), Muslims cannot be expected either to listen to the challenges that we want to make or to our witness to Christ.

Christians in Britain need to be reminded that the vast majority of Muslims all over the world are not Islamists, and that Christians living in Islamic countries are not always persecuted and often have surprising freedom to live and share their faith.

They also need to know that some of the Muslims in the Middle East who have become disciples of Jesus in recent years have been Islamists. If it was possible for Saul the Pharisee, who persecuted Christians, to turn to Christ, why should we not believe that Islamists can be changed by the message of the gospel?

Be prepared for "hard talk' with Muslims and Islamists

Christians will of course want to join hands with all Muslims who condemn terrorism " especially when it is used in the name of religion. And although it is hard to have meaningful dialogue with violent Islamists, it should not be so difficult to have serious discussion with mainstream Muslims and moderate Islamists who are aware of the crisis that has been created for Islam by terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. In this dialogue, alongside all the areas where we have common ground with Muslims, these are some of the harder questions we may want to ask:
"¢ We are prepared to be critical about our history; but are you prepared to be critical of yours? You are critical and sometimes bitter about centuries of Western imperialism. But we don't often find that you are willing to admit that Islam has had its own empires.
"¢ What is your ideal political order? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are countries which describe themselves as "Islamic'. If a favourite slogan of Islamists is "Islam is the answer', would you point to these or to any other countries as evidence that "Islam is the answer'?
"¢ Do you accept the concept of universal human rights as they have developed in recent years? Many of us are concerned about the clear tensions that seem to exist between internationally accepted standards of human rights and traditional Islamic values " e.g. over the status of women and freedom to practise and change one's religion.
"¢ What about the means that you use to achieve your goals? Does the end justify the means? While we recognise that many Islamists are totally committed to work within the law and democratic processes, we are concerned when we hear some Islamists saying that they have no qualms about using democratic processes to subvert democracy.
"¢ Are you willing to accept the existence of pluralist societies? While we understand your anger about so much that the West has done to the Muslim world, and while we weep over the many failings of Western societies, we don't like the sound of the alternative kind of society that many Islamists want to create in the West. We have seen many examples in history of what happens when religion is too closely related to the state, when faith is too closely identified with power. The oft-quoted Qur'anic text "There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256) must mean at the very least that submission to God cannot be brought about by coercion.

Colin Chapman's first engagement with Islam came through working with the Church Mission Society in teaching roles in Egypt and Lebanon over seventeen years. In his last post, 1999"2003, he was lecturer in Islamic Studies at the Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon.