Friday, October 12, 2007
Who is waging religious war?
A group of Muslim scholars has inadvertantly revealed the vast gulf between their own religion and modern Christianity:
Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Pope Benedict are believed to have been sent copies of the document which calls for greater understanding between the two faiths.
The letter also spells out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.
The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The reaction of thoughtful Christians to this letter has got to be "????".
Let's be honest. Many Muslims, including the authors of this letter, regard themselves as engaged in a religious or confessional war. Muslims have, in effect, chosen to declare themselves in military alliance with all Muslims everywhere, regardless of nationality. That is the only way to explain the popularity of the idea that Muslims the world over are somehow justified in taking up arms because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, or the billeting of American troops in Saudi Arabia, or even the invasion of Iraq.
If a non-Muslim power -- say, Israel, the United States, or India -- "oppresses" or kills Palestinians, Iraqis, or Kashmiris, Muslim leaders usually say they regard it as an attack on all Muslims, and Muslim public opinion follows. In addition, more than a few of those Muslims believe that it is their bounden duty to come to the defense of even foreign Muslims who have been attacked. On this point, Osama bin Laden and leftist Western "experts" agree -- the jihadis, who come from all over the Muslim world, started attacking Western targets not because we attacked their countries, but because we had (supposedly) oppressed their co-religionists.
The reverse, however, is not true. I know many actual practicing Christians, and I do not know one who believes that the wars we have fought in the last six years have anything to do with the fact that Muslims have attacked or threatened Christians qua Christians. Western Christians do not any longer go to war in solidarity with foreign Christians -- the very idea is absurd, even in George W. Bush's America. For the United States and the West, the current wars have nothing to do with the defense of Christendom (nobody even uses that word anymore). They are about defense of country.
So, when you hear a Western leftist echo the position of these Muslim scholars -- that Christianity is somehow waging a war against Islam -- ask yourself this: On which side do people spring to the defense of their co-religionists, and on which side do they rise in defense of country? Which side defines the struggle in religious terms, and which defines it in national terms?
These Muslim scholars worry about religious war and call for peace. Bully for them. But the only reason there is even a risk of a religious war is that Muslims teach the asinine and dangerous idea that their religion requires Muslims to defend other Muslims who are "oppressed" or attacked, wherever they they may be in the world. This is the mother of all entangling alliances, and religious war -- which these scholars claim to oppose -- is its natural and virtually inevitable consequence. It is both hypocritical and idiotic that they call on Christians -- who do not any longer build military alliances along confessional lines -- to end religious war when they themselves have not denounced Islamic leaders who declare that Muslims should owe a duty of defense to Muslims everywhere.
20 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Fri Oct 12, 09:01:00 AM:
"they themselves have not denounced Islamic leaders who declare that Muslims should owe a duty of defense to Muslims everywhere."
They can't. It's built into the religion, from God's own mouth.
The word "umma," that Muslim scholars throw around all the time, is often defined as "community" by apologists. But that isn't what it means. It means, "nation." As in, the United Nations, (ummum al-mutahida) and the Nation of Islam. (ummat al-islam)
In their minds, all Muslims (alleged heretics aside) do in fact belong to the same (religious) nation, and therefore it makes as much sense to come to the aid of a co-religionists as it does to us to come to the aid of fellow Americans, Canadians, Germans, or whatever.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Oct 12, 09:45:00 AM:
You are on to something here, though, and it in large measure explains why there is a cohort of folks in the west who actually sympathize with the Islamists -- muchas they did with the Soviets. I think this crowd includes the Soros-types -- they are the utopian one worlders who detest nationalism above all else and who explicitly work to erode the power of the nation state. Soros's Open Society Institute actually shares this philosophy I think with Islamists -- as do holdover Marxists. And since the most powerful nation state in the world today is the US, it has become their target.
By David M, at
Fri Oct 12, 11:20:00 AM:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
By antithaca, at
Fri Oct 12, 01:35:00 PM:
So, where do I get the text of this letter?
Is it a threat or a plea for peace?
And, let's not forget we were told, by some, we had to "make peace" with the Soviets or the world would be destroyed by the maniacal Reagan.
pfft. Turns out, from day one, some historians now -admit-, Reagan wanted to, was working to, negotiate with the Soviets.
He, Reagan, simply wanted to ensure America was negotiating from a position of strength. Of course, people deride this position still today...but at least you can spot them for who/what they are.
By Marzouq the Redneck Muslim, at
Fri Oct 12, 01:48:00 PM:
This concept of the Muslim Nation is interesting. What is also interesting is most of the killing in this "Jihad" is Muslim on Muslim. The word Jihad is misused in the West, a better word for what is going on is Quital (fighting/war). I believe there is a war within Islam much like the wars within Christianity during the dark ages.
This War is complex. Many facets and factions. Even the concept of nation state is threatened by the concepts of ethnicity, religion, tribe or world government. The American Experement is, in my opinion, fragile and threatened.
This is all so complex and confusing. One thing I learned from my studies of the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH) is Islam is the supreme religion and is destined by the will of Allah to cover the world. Supremacy and devine command to spread is what Islam and Christianity have in common. It seems with the Jews the goal is just survival. I wonder why The Most High (Elohim/Yaweh/Allah) wills it so?
I have to agree with the Muslim letter, the world is in peril. I do not believe the peril is Islam. The problem is "Muslim" criminals/killers/terrorists with a warped vision of Allah's will.
This peril is definately a bigger threat than global warming!
Salaam eleikum, Y'all!
By Elliott, at
Fri Oct 12, 02:56:00 PM:
"This peril is definately a bigger threat than global warming!" LOL!
Agree with the post, and most of the comments. What a strange decision to send such a letter to the Pope (of all people!)
My own reaction took the form of gentle satire - but very much in the same vein as your take. It's good to have company!
By 
, at
Fri Oct 12, 03:21:00 PM:
Something along the same line, Front Page quoted from MEMRI:
“A fatwa issued in August 2007 by the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), Dr. Sheikh Salah Al-Sawy, states that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden and invalid, and children born of such a union are illegitimate."
The most bigoted bible-thumper that the Enlightened Left can conjure out of their imaginations, doesn’t hold a candle to these people. I previously had little appreciation for Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals, but the attacks from people on the Enlightened Left, such as Al Gore, which compared and even equated them w Jihadists, has given me much more appreciation for what I have in common with Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals.
The link that MEMRI cites for this fatwa is down. Has it been removed, or is this a translation from Arabic, I don’t know. MEMRI does have a reputation for accurate translation and/or citation, from what I have read.
By , at
Fri Oct 12, 03:21:00 PM:
So we have "peaceful, inner struggle" jihad and "shoot anything that moves" JIHAD!
How are we supposed to tell the difference, before it is too late?
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Oct 12, 03:48:00 PM:
I have never, ever seen 'jihad' used to mean 'peaceful inner struggle.' Ever. The word means "Holy War," pretty much literally.
Now it could of course be used metaphorically, just as we in english use our own "holy war" word, crusade, as in "the crusade against poverty" or whatever, but it's always explained. So there could conceivably be a phrase reading something like, "Jihad against illiteracy." But jihad by itself means holy war.
Caveat: Sufism maintains the definition of two kinds of jihad; the jihad against the infidels, and the inner jihad which is the mystic's personal quest to find God. Now that I think about it, that might be the origin of the whole "inner struggle" angle, but it's important to note that that is not a replacement for the real jihad against non-believers, it's an accompaniment.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Oct 12, 08:39:00 PM:
Dawnfire82 said: In their minds, all Muslims (alleged heretics aside) do in fact belong to the same (religious) nation, and therefore it makes as much sense to come to the aid of a co-religionists as it does to us to come to the aid of fellow Americans, Canadians, Germans, or whatever.
Yes, but that is their choice. Religion is not hard-coded into DNA. Muslims are free to stage a reformation at any time. Indeed, many would say that the radical Islamists are doing just that, but in the opposite direction. So, I regard the continuing willingness of Muslims to rise in the defense of co-religionists as a choice. But whether or not it is a choice, it is the essence of religious war. Muslims believe in it, and modern Christians do not.
By Escort81, at
Fri Oct 12, 09:10:00 PM:
As I think I have previously posted some time ago, the concept of the Umma is a hard for me to understand, and I think generally hard for someone in the Western mindset to understand. It is not as if Polish Catholics rallied to the defense of Catholics in Northern Ireland in the last third of the 20th century, and flocked there to engage in combat against the British Protestant oppressors. My mother was a Hungarian Catholic who believed the IRA's tactics were reprehensible (admittedly, she was somewhat of an Anglophile, having attended Oxford for a year after college in the U.S.). I am a small part Irish Catholic on my father's side (in fact, my ancestor who came over from County Donegal in the 1700s was a Fenian, sort of a predecessor entity of the IRA), and I thought the IRA's tactics were horrible. Are we missing something?
CP’s insight regarding anti-nationalist utopians is interesting, although I think many internationalist progressives (or, I think, as TH would call them, “transnationalist progressives”) would at least give lip service to self-determination by a distinct people or culture. They would not have objected, for example, when Montenegro split from Serbia a year or so ago, or when the Czechs and the Slovaks had a reasonably amicable divorce in the 1990s. I’d be willing to bet that not many IPs / TPs would have a problem if Darfur were split off from the rest of Sudan and became an independent nation under U.N. protection.
It is notable that Marxists are happy to become bedfellows with the worst sorts of religious fanatics, and that more often than not, the Marxists end up with the short end of the stick. One of the remarkable things about Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah” is the description of the Iranian secular leftists (some of whom had attended universities in the West) who despised the Shah and helped to overthrow him, only to be turned on by the much more rabid and religious followers of Khomeini. It’s as if they were the Mensheviks to the Ayatollah’s Bolsheviks. That’s why Mossadegh (his 1953 overthrow is frequently cited by Tehran as a reason why America is evil) would projectile vomit if he were alive to see the Iranian regime today.
The U.S. is a reasonably religious country (more so than most European nations), and I would estimate that it is a minority of Americans who believe in a literal interpretation of whichever text is their holy book. Do most of the world’s Muslims (roughly a billion, give or take) believe that the Koran must be followed word for word? Is defense of the Umma simply a matter of theological indoctrination? Or is it more indicative of an overall level of anger and frustration, and the Koran provides the rationalization to lash out? What other great religion has a similar philosophy in this respect?
By pst314, at
Fri Oct 12, 09:44:00 PM:
"the concept of the Umma is a hard for me to understand"
Think of the Nazi concept of das Volk, or Mussolini's "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Oct 12, 10:26:00 PM:
Do most of the world’s Muslims (roughly a billion, give or take) believe that the Koran must be followed word for word?
To NOT do so renders you apostate since the Koran is believed to be literally the word of Allah and by definition "perfect".
This is why there will never be any "reformation of Islam". Any would be reformers are by definition apostate, since they question the literal and perfect word of Allah.
The sentence for apostasy in Islam is death.
By , at
Fri Oct 12, 10:36:00 PM:
The West's nation-states are all tribal based: Franks become the French, the Lombards and such become the Italians, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes plus native Britons and Normans become English. Religion is not part of the tribal identity.
By contrast, Islam in it's "Golden Age" consisted of massive Caliphates stretching from Spain in the West to Southern France and Italy, Sicily, North Africa, the ME, all the way to Central Asia, India, and Southeast Asia. No individual tribes but rather the Caliph.
That identity has never died. Imagine Caesar, Jesus, and Alexander the Great all in one person and you get the society and people Mohammed created.
Muslims will ALWAYS put the Ummah before nation. Look at the UAR. Guy Mollet's proposal of unifying Britain and France was never seriously addressed by the British. By contrast Egypt and Syria DID indeed combine. It makes sense under the concept of the Ummah. Nations are unimportant and artificial and recent creations of the infidel. Not Muslims.
By Pangloss, at
Fri Oct 12, 11:16:00 PM:
Good point from cardinalpark:
You are on to something here, though, and it in large measure explains why there is a cohort of folks in the west who actually sympathize with the Islamists -- muchas they did with the Soviets. I think this crowd includes the Soros-types -- they are the utopian one worlders who detest nationalism above all else and who explicitly work to erode the power of the nation state. Soros's Open Society Institute actually shares this philosophy I think with Islamists -- as do holdover Marxists.
It sounds like you are drawing an equivalence relationship between the Umma and the surviving intellectual colonies in the West of the old Communist Internationale. They both want to colonize us. That much is clear. One to turn us into a new, even more oppressive Soviet State, and the other to turn us into yet another Arabian vassal state.
It sure does suck to be colonized. Didn't the USA have to throw off a colonial power once already? Is this the USA's curse, to be the target of colonialist forces for eternity?
By Marzouq the Redneck Muslim, at
Sat Oct 13, 09:55:00 AM:
This is why I am so conflicted and confused. As a naturalized American citizen and a member of the Umma it is wierd.
I see the US Constitution as a very fine form of Sharia. The Muslim Manifesto refers to several quotes from the Quran that fit. Such as "there is no compultion in religion" and how to coexist with the People of the Book. It points to the common denominator between Christianity and Islam, the commandment on which hangs all the laws and scriptures: Thou shalt love the LORD with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.
The problem with some Christians and some Muslims is they interpret that first commandment to apply only to their coreligionists.
The commandment from Jesus Son of Mary (Peace be upon him) I find so important is, "Fear Not". I find it so important because it has been shown that fear begats hate and hate begats destruction. Look how the haters manipulate the ignorant, how the media stokes fear.
I search, read and learn from blogs written by "cooler heads" like Wretchard of Belmont Club and find myself here with commenters from that site. I like that.
As for the thought of the impossibility of a reformation within Islam, I do not think so. The truth is all scripture was written by men and all men are imperfect. The scriptures can be interpreted in so many ways.
Salaam eleikum Y'all!
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Oct 13, 12:31:00 PM:
"Yes, but that is their choice."
They don't get a choice. Jews don't pick and choose which foods are kosher and which are not, and Christians can't just tune out part of Jesus's teachings because they feel like it.
Well, I suppose they can, but that makes them *not* Jews or Christians. In America, such a sect might be looked at askew, but in the Middle East they are heretics or apostates, guilty of bida'a (religious innovation; basically, altering god's words/commands and a supreme sin, since Islam was sent down to correct Jews and Christians who had corrupted original religion in such a manner).
'Islam' means 'submission to God.' If you only submit to part of God's will, you're not fully Muslim. At some points in history this qualification was less strictly enforced, but a revivalist movement always comes along to straighten everyone out. We're in one of those today.
Referring to Purple Avenger, there is a theological reason that Muslims insist on learning the Quran in Arabic. That is the language in which God delivered his commands and prophecies, and since translating into any other language alters the meanings of words only those who learn the (highly precise) Arabic can really understand God's will.
Point: The Quran consists of God's own words. To deny it, or any part of it, is to deny God and his command to follow Islam.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-islam." 5:3
The only real wiggle-room in Sunni Islamic theology deals with Hadith, their interpretation, and which ones to follow. (Shi'a are considerably more disparate, relatively speaking) A small liberal movement advocates not following any of them, arguing that they were spoken by a man in a certain time and place and therefore are neither divine commands (like the Quran) or necessarily appropriate for the modern world.
By Viking Kaj, at
Sat Oct 13, 01:57:00 PM:
Let's not forget that Umma has taken a strong turn to the right in the last century based upon the conquering of the holy cities by the Wahabi Bedou of the house of Saud. While Prince Bandar may be a close personal friend of the Bush family, most of his relatives are not friends of the America.
By controlling the sites of the Haj required of all devout Mulims, the house of Saud has been able to inculcate the particular Wahabi passion for Jihad in the pilgrims of many nations, and make Islam a religion militant in the 21st century. This is not helped by the Saudi support for theologians worldwide.
Truthfully, if we understood more about Islam rather than viewing it as a monolith, we would stand a better chance of dealing with situation at hand. Rather than propping up a tyranical and unpopular royal house of questionable legitimacy, why do we not try to put the situation in the hands of theologically less radical human beings?
Of course to do so would undermine a major cornerstone of US policy in the region, but I'm not so sure what we are doing is working anyway. It seems to me that you should fight ideas with ideas, so where is our support for moderates over religious conservatives?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Oct 13, 03:41:00 PM:
The truth is all scripture was written by men and all men are imperfect.
This is propaganda. The Koran was dictated verbatim by Allah to the prophet.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Oct 13, 05:13:00 PM:
"Rather than propping up a tyranical and unpopular royal house of questionable legitimacy, why do we not try to put the situation in the hands of theologically less radical human beings?"
This is self-contradictory. The Saudis were remarkably more liberal in the 70s, and were almost overthrown for their troubles because they were not 'Islamic enough.' Sound familiar?
The Saudi royals tend to be educated, urbane, and relatively friendly towards the US. It's the populace that is the problem.
