Redstate

If we're going to wade into these waters, I'm going to start it.  Go ahead and have the debate about whether America can handle Muslims, but I will bring up the KKK's and Hitler's references to Christianity each time.  If we are to hold whole religions accountable for the actions of some of their members, then every Christian here better be able to explain the photos at the bottom of this thread.  Judge the individuals involved and hold them accountable, not just in this murder but in all crimes and violations of law.

I think the Muslim community has indeed judged the individuals involved in terrorist acts and murders of this sort.

Any thoughts as to what has been the verdict?

My girlfriend is a Republican Muslim and her family is full of hardworking, nonviolent Americans.  For that reason, I'm going to step out of this conversation before I make it personal.

Catholics were once thought to be so.

But, Adam, c'mon. You can do better than that Ole! routine.

Distasteful posters = ritual murder? Come on.

And please, please do not bring up that dispicable old canard that lays Hitler at the feet of Christianity.

It is of course true that Christians across the centuries have killed in the name of their religion, just as Muslims have done. The difference is this, and it is ineffaceable: Christians kill against the commands of their founder; Muslims kill in obedience to the commands of theirs.

Getting other countries liberty does not make us safer.  Timothy McVeigh was from a "liberated" country.

The nature of the warning? The murders send a signal from the Muslims to the Copts: we are going to behave here the same way we behaved in Egypt, and the First Amendment and American law enforcement will not protect you. Don't expect America to keep you safe from us. The oppression and harassment you thought you had left behind in Egypt has now come to you.

That sums up the challenge of every wave of immigration to the US.  The new arrivals bring with them either the oppression of the old country or a reaction against it.  In the beginning when the newcomers are socially isolated crime is difficult to solve and blamed on the immigrants or the immigrants' old world ties.  Once the children or grandchildren join the mainstream of life crimes are more easily solved as the police begin to contain these grandchildren or their peers and the grandchildren, and their peers turn more easily to American society for resolution of old world disputes.

NYPD was not prepared to stop antiCatholic murder and riot, at first.  Now I don't think it matters so much-- they stop what murder and riot they can without regard to confession.  The pattern was repeated with blacks and latinos in several cities.

Can muslims live in a society were Islam is (eventually) merely on par with other religions?  I believe Islam has a number of sects with different teachings on civil society.  Christianity also.  There was some thought that Catholicism could not survive without governmental support in North America.  Not so long ago it was argued that Catholics could not take the oath of office if elected President of the US or that the Papacy would run the White House.

"America" cannot keep anyone safe, but our justice system can prosecute crimes.

I don't blame you, and completely understand.

I really do wonder how your girlfriend and her family feel about this subject - probably complicated emotions. Do they think they need to stand up and speak out, or do they think it is better to let their actions speak about how they feel about America? Do they have mixed feelings about what is going on? Should they? Interesting that you have this inside view on a part of the Muslim community here.

I remember when the first Gulf War was going on, I met an Iraqi at a friend's house. Being a patriotic American, I was a little put out until I learned he was a Kurd who had been fighting Saddam in the mountains for ten years. Had quite an affect on me and made me realize that you need to read the label, so to speak, to get a little more info on the person before making a decision.

Some Muslims cheered when the statue came down, some did not. I have not worked out how we should deal with this as a country - it seems that our welcoming nature and love of liberty allowed terrorists to live among us. All indications are that they still do.

Thus the quandry.

So would nuking everyone else. I prefer the gamma radation-lite alternative.

Isolationism is the other alternative, and no longer feasible.

We could effect a quarantine of the Middle East: wherever possible, we make it our policy to reduce the incidence of Muslim-Western contact. We follow Kipling's maxim: "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

Practical ideas for such a policy might include: 1) A moratorium on all Muslim immigration into America, until such time as we are satisfied that Islam has gotten its house in order. 2) Removing our military presence, as much as possible, from civilian centers in the Muslim world. 3) Abandoning the pretense of imagining that we can forcibly remake the Muslim world in our image. That is, declare that it is none of our business how Muslim nations organize themselves, so long as they do not organize themeselves by anti-Americanism. Doing so will provoke a severe penalty.

When was the last time a nation with an elected represenative government attacked another elected representative?

And how often do we experience a Timothy McVeigh (who was helped by an Iraqi operative, according to a book whose title I can't recall, but was endorsed by a former CIA head for its accuracy? P.S. McVeigh's final words were not about Waco. His final words were in support of the Sudanese Muslims!)

For one, like the majority of Muslims in America, they are South Asian, not Arab.  Some are defensive about the War on Terror as it seems like endless attacks on Muslims nations and there is a fear that people are lumping all Muslims into one category and vilifying them (which can be seen in the rhetoric of "Is Islam compatible with America").

I don't know their specific views on foreign policy, but I get the feeling they are more sympathetic to Palestine (probably closer to a European view than an America one), but they also seem to blame terrorists for creating a bad image for other Muslims.  I don't want to speculate beyond that as to their views.

After 9/11 I was aware of several churches and communities setting up information sessions with local Muslim leaders so that other groups could learn more about Islam.  I haven't seen much in that vein recently, but I believe it could help people realize that the vast majority of Muslims in America are peaceful, hardworking, and good citizens.

Christians kill against the commands of their founder; Muslims kill in obedience to the commands of theirs.

That is the problem. No one really says this. When Christians kill it is against what Christ (God) says to do and is a sin. When Muslims kill it is what Allah (God to the Muslim) says to do. When a Christian does not kill it is what Christ says to do. When a Muslim does not kill it is against what Allah says to do.

I highly recommend a book by Alvin J. Schmidt, The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West to better educate on this issue.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1928653197/qid=1106417098/sr=
8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-0061048-1555358?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Could you please cite where Allah instructs Muslims to kill.  I haven't read the whole Koran and I'm interested in the passage you refer to.

Why would you pose a moratorium on all Muslims instead of Arabs.  I disagree with the whole concept, but how is a Senegalese Muslim more dangerous than a non-religious Palestinian to American interests.  I continue to say we must judge the individual, not the religious (or ethnicity), but why should African Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, and Kuwaiti Muslims be lumped in with Al Queda Muslims.

Before we even consider giving our Muslim citizens a choice between expulsion or conversion (for what other options are available, if you answer the question "is Islam compatible with America" in the negative?) let's at least wait for the facts and, once we have the facts, attempt to use them to generate rules that have a basis in reason rather than hysteria.  In other words:

1.  The investigation is still ongoing.
   
2.  Most folks who are promoting the story have a political agenda that may be coloring their efforts (Robert Spencer, for example).
   
3.  There are long-running disputes among Coptic Christians, Maronite Christians, Orthodox Christians, and Moslems in the Middle East.  The roots for these disputes are in part religious, in part ethnic, and in part economic.  They are not easily accessible to the outsider, and they almost certainly play a role here (note the differing reported reactions from the Greek Orthodox and Coptic communities to the murder).  Do not make the mistake of Paul Bowles' protagonists, and believe that you understand what you do not.  I get the sense that there's a lot more going on here, and it doesn't devolve to side X and Y (indeed, it almost never does).
   
4.  If the crime is found to have been religiously motivated (which it hasn't of yet), of course prosecute it as such.
   
5.  Do not, however, make the mistake of believing that because religion appears to motivate this crime, or this war, or this attack, or this unrest, that the religion itself is the evil (or even the actual motivation).  Indeed, that way lies a Godwin's Rule violation, as well as some very unflattering suggestions regarding my and your religion -- not all of which are safely confined to the middle ages.  (See, e.g., slavery, whose proponents in part sought support from religious texts).
   
6.  It's regrettable that Doverspa, who actually knows something about Islam as practiced in the US, feels compelled to remove himself from this discussion.  Y'all could actually learn something useful from him on this subject -- if you'd but listen.

A whole host of other evils, like Jim Crowe, the Klan, etc.  You may point out that these folks are misusing the Christian religion.  That's correct, despite the fact that, in certain regions and times, they represented the dominant interpretation of the religion.

Could it be because it was Muslims who danced in the street when 9/11 happened, and it's foreign-born American Muslims who are strangely silent when it comes to helping to uncover the terrorists among us?

There are Muslim terrorists in the Philipines, Africa and in the US. In contrast, there are very few Norwiegen (sp?) terrorists in the US.

That puts Muslims, wherever they might reside, at the top of the list for possible terrorist activities.

PS. My deepest apologies for using the term Xtian. I find it offensive, too. In this case, there wasn't enough room for the word "Christian."

Muslims not only can integrate into US society, they do so now, and have been doing so for quite a long time.

Pop quiz: where is the largest Sunni Muslim community outside of the middle east?

Answer: Dearborn MI, where over 200,000 Arabs of various faiths, including many Sunnis and Shias, live and have lived for generations.  The first mosque in the US was established there in 1919.  These folks are classic "American dream" immigrants.  They are also frequently quite conservative, and many were highly supportive of our invasion of Iraq in March of '03.

There are, certainly, Muslim communities which are far less well integrated into American society and culture.  There are, certainly, Muslims in this country who don't wish us well.  Muslims from officially Islamic states, and/or Muslims who are rigorously fundamentalist in outlook, may find it more difficult than others to accept the distinction between religious and civil authority.  There are Christian and Jewish communities that have the same problem.  I don't think the problem is inherent to Islam.

Cheers -

That's the great "Democracies don't go to war" maxim. Weird neorealist that I am, I have long suspected it's bunk; but the data at least suggests it's a good opening idea.

But only slightly so. The last clause of 6 is a walk too far. You know Paul. He'll listen. He may likely disagree, but he'll listen.

The only problem is that radical Muslims seem to settle philosophical differences by killing people. Murder seems to be a form of free speech in that culture, and this is what generates the question of whether Islam and America are compatible.

I think we have every right to be wary of Muslims who do not care to integrate into American society. Europe is beginning to learn this the very hard way. Previous generations of immigrants certainly made waves, and some took a fairly long time to integrate, but killing the host was really never an issue.

Both Christianity and Islam have the notions of just war.  Arguably, Christianity in the beginning was a religion of absolute pacifism but with the conversion of Constantine and the adoption of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire the need for justifying a just war became apparent.  

The doctrine of just war, derived from St. Augustine and Grotian, is thus: according to Christian values, absolute directives such as "Thou shalt not kill" do not apply to those who commit aggression, for they then forfeit their immunity to violence.  The "thou shalt not kill" therefore becomes "thou shalt not murder", for killing in self-defense or in the defense of others is not murder.  Grotian takes this basic ideology a step farther.  An aggressor should be punished, not just repelled, and military force is permissible in preventing egregious humanitarian abuses.  The next step in the evolution of the Christian doctrine is the execution of the Crusades, which began with a call for help in defending against Muslim expansion.  That defensive posture over the centuries changed to offensive action; in short, the Christian religious ideal changed as the community of faith felt threatened.

 In Islam, there are varying interpretations of the meaning of jihad.  Jihad literally means "struggle" or "strive", but the question is what this struggle entails.  One of the hadith of Muhammad speaks of him returning from battle and stating that he has just returned from a "lesser jihad" and that it was time to get back to the "greater jihad" - arguably the act of striving to be a better Muslim, worshipping Allah, and serving one's community.  There are passages alternatively calling for or allowing for Muslims to fight in self-defense, just as in the Christian just war doctrine.  One main question, however, is what constitutes self-defense.   For example, some Muslims see the world in terms of Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (Abode of War).  Dar-ul-Harb exists during periods of oppression or when there are in a land people who have failed to accept the will of Allah.  However, throughout history, People of the Book - generally Christians and Jews, but at times extended to include Buddhists and Hindus - have been considered dhimmis (protected peoples) as long as they paid the jizya (head tax).

 However, the definition of protected peoples, just as the definition of dar-ul-harb, changes with historical circumstances.  Terrorist groups today such as al Qaeda truly believe that they are now in a state of dar-ul-harb, and therefore the do not have just limited political goals than can be appeased or that lead to attacks with only few casualties.  Instead, al-Qaeda is an example of group that carries out religiously-motivated catastrophic attacks.

The reason religion has been a motivator for this new breed of catastrophic terrorism, and also why it lends itself to protracted conflicts, is that war in this case is a cosmic war.  In other words, the fight is cast in absolute terms and often involves fighting for the rule of God against a state that does not uphold religious values and that in religious rhetoric is often satanized and delegitimized.

I don't think we can just say that Christians kill against the edicts of their religion and that Muslims do at the command of their religion. To do so is to grossly misunderstand the history of both religions' concepts of just war.

By the way, I'm Doverspa's Muslim girlfriend and although I've been too busy FIGHTING Sunni extremist terrorism at work to post on here this debate just may bring me back.

I was unaware of this "Iraqi operative" connection so I will reserve judgement until I know more. You're right that a catastrophic domestic terrorism act such as OK City is unusual and we do not in that case often experience a "Timothy McVeigh". However, I hope we understand here that terrorism, even catastrophic terrorism, is not merely the purview of Sunni or Shia extremists - for a good history of terrorism in general (arguably starting with the admittedly Muslim "Hassasins" but in the modern form beginning with the Reign of Terror in France), I would take a peek at Bruce Hoffman's "Inside Terrorism". To look at religion and terrorism to include Buddhist terrorism and Christian terrorism, read Mark Jurgensmeyer's "Terror in the Mind of God."

...I bet he could come up with some good comments. Amazed that I'm agreeing with all our Dem regulars on this topic...

(1) I think you mean Grotius, in which case there's a bit of a temporal overlap there -- twelve hundred or so years, to be precise. Properly, the Just War tradition received, if memory serves, its first articulation in Augustine, then had a very long development before it ever got Hugo's attention.

(2) To say early Christianity was exclusively pacifist is to dramatically oversimplify; but that quibble, if expanded, would exceed the length of your comment.

(3) The tension between the Christian imperative to love and show mercy, and the demands of citizenship in Rome (the apple Augustine was looking to slice) predate Constantine's conversion, and was only (partially) resolved decades after.

(4) No human ever, in Christian thought, "forfeit[s] [his] immunity to violence." Properly, the Just War tradition attempts to balance the fact that you will be doing harm to another with the harm that would occur but for your act. It provides moral room to do harm, not by removing the inherent dignity of an individual, but by contextualizing the violence and the side effects of the violence. Thus, in the classic example, killing the man who is trying to kill your children (and who would accomplish this end but for your interference) is not licit because he is sinning, but because the consequences of your inaction (1) might be considered sin itself (insofar as you have complicity by omission) and (2) are so much worse than the consequences of your action. I have made a hash of this, but trust me: Christian doctrine specifically forbids dehumanizing another for any end (which is why so many Christians tend to get touchy about abortion).

(5) I think you've conflated Grotius with Kant, but I think both are idiots, so it's not beyond possibility that I'm completely wrong in this.

(6) I think you've vastly oversimplified the Crusades, and have some of the particulars wrong; but I can leave that to trevino, or any number of others. And this comment is now becoming as long as a post.

(7) You just sugarcoated the heck out of dhimmitude.

(8) I know virtually nothing about Islam (well, I know virtually nothing about anything, but I know even less) except its effects on those parts of the world it has touched. I therefore take your explanation in that regard as absolutely correct.

I'll leave it at that.

I have to recuse myself from this thread because the premise, as implied by the question "Are America and Islam compatible?" would essentially be validated.

I've long argued - and when i say this to most American muslims I meet, and a lot of Pakistani ones for that matter, that America is the greatest Islamic country in the world.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the role of democratic ideas in Islam, or the role that any religion's adherents play in shaping the cultural mainstream of their communities. What I'm not willing to do is play defense to a straw man's attacks.

Anyway, Adam and Jennifer have pretty much said all the usual things I'd have said anyway.

i meant to say, "when I say that (America greatest Islamic oc--try etc) to muslims in America, and Pakistan, they emphatically agree." sorry for the mangled grammar.

(1) Indeed it is ongoing. I noted that twice in my original essay.

(2) Yes, yes: political agendas proliferate. Horror of horrors. Spencer makes no bones about his own position, while the AP, in its tendentious piece, concealed its position under the increasingly tedious cloak of Objectivity. But my own political agenda remains unconcealed as well: I want to have a serious debate about Islam in America; a debate in which opinions that offend the political correct are nevertheless considered openly. And I think I speak for a great many Americans when I say that I never even thought about whether Islam could be incompatible with America until 19 Muslims gave us a mass grave in Lower Manhattan.

(3) I do not deny for a moment that the "long-running disputes" among Egyptians might impinge on this crime; but if -- again, if -- a Christian family was ritually murdered by Muslims in America, then we have crossed a bright line indeed, and the last thing we need is to have the discussion of its implications cut off before it begins.

(4) Whatever the motivation for the crime, I hope the perpetrators will be prosecuted aggressively. And I am among the many (I expect) who will be relieved if religion is shown to have played no role.

(5) I do not propose that Americans undertake a final theological evaluation of Islam (though we cannot ignore theology entirely). What Islam is, is a thing that ultimately Muslims must decide. In the same way, what America is, is a thing that Americans must decide.

Before we even consider giving our Muslim citizens a choice between expulsion or conversion (for what other options are available, if you answer the question "is Islam compatible with America" in the negative?) . . .

I don't think the choices, even if we answer in the negative, are that stark -- especially if we get on with the serious business of a republic and start asking ourselves tough questions. I have elsewhere compared the problem to that which faced us vis-a-vis Communism. The comparison is hardly perfect, but I think it can be instructive to the extent that we recall that, back then, we recognized a continuum of Communist sympathy and thus a continuum of responses to Communism.

The basic principle is that no nation need tolerate those within it who aspire to violently overthrow its government and replace it with another. To the extent that Communists aspired to do that, they came under increasingly onerous social, political and legal disabilities. In short, we placed an increasingly higher price on the ideas associated with Communism, with an eye on dissuading people from adopting, expressing and acting upon those ideas.

Now this is delicate stuff, of course, but might not we apply the same principle to Islam? As I understand it (and I could be wrong), Islam demands of its faithful that they aspire to enact shar'ia law in the place where they reside; and that many Muslims (both historically and currently) interpret this to allow subversive, perfidious, and even violent methods to achieve it.

Surely we can see that this presents a problem. If it is true that Islam requires this, then it is also true, I think, that we must acknowledge a basic incompatibility. To be a faithful to his creed, an American Muslim must remain open to disloyalty, while to be a loyal American, a Muslim must renounce the aspiration to shar'ia law. He must allow for treason, or turn apostate. Ergo, a problem.

Note 1: We would not, even in an extreme situation, demand that all Muslims everywhere renounce shar'ia law. Again, it is not our business to decide what Islam is. But it is our business to decide what America is. And we have decided, very emphatically I think, that America is not a country governed by the stringent codes of an alien creed. Most of us are quite hostile even to the idea of being governed by the more relaxed codes of our own native creed, Christianity.

Note 2: The comparison to Communism applies here only to the question of our response. That is, I do not mean to imply any philosophical or theological similarity between Islam and Communism (though alot of neoconservatives and liberals have done good work in demonstrating the amount of penetration that Western radicalism has made among some sects of Islam). I assure you that I find Islam to be a much more noble creed than Communism.

I actually didn't have Paul in mind when I drafted that line.  (For the record.)

I don't consider myself a democrat (and I have the voting record to prove it).  

(1)  Yes, you note the investigation is ongoing, but your whole post (and point) is based upon a conclusion that you assume will result from the investigation.  My point is that you assume too quickly.  

(2)  Whatever the AP's biases, they're presenting the story with far more balance than Mr. Spencer; iow, they're at least presenting each side, while Mr. Spencer only attempts to present one.  You also conflate "everyone is biased" with "everyone is equally biased."  That the first may be true does not mean that the second also is.  

(3)  Have we crossed the same line if we discover that a black man has been ritually murdered by whites in America?  Or that a woman has been raped by a man?  Or that a Jew has been beaten or killed by a Christian?  Or that a gay man has been beaten or killed by a straight man?  Or that two white, Christian, gun-owning men blew up a federal building in Oklahoma?  Are whiteness, manhood, Christianity, heterosexuality, and gun ownership now incompatible with America?

It's not the facts or the direct conclusion that I dispute -- nineteen Muslims flew jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon for their religion; something terrible appears to have infected them under color of their religion, and it would behoove us to figure out why and what and to fight it with every means at our disposal.  It's your extrapolation of this conclusion generally to Islam.

(4)  Noted & agreed.

(5)  Without rehashing it here, we have different conceptions of what America is.  And, though I disagree vehemently with some of your conceptions (as you do with some of mine), I don't think that you argue your position in bad faith; or with malice; or with anything but goodness as you goal.  

With respect to Islam's requirements and their compatibility with loyalty to the U.S., I suggest that you reach out to Muslims in your community and find out what they believe.  IOW, my experiences with Muslim Americans, though admittedly anecdotal, is vastly different from your assertion.  Moreover, the same fear that you advance with respect to Muslim Americans, is a fear that has been suggested with respect to Jewish and Catholic Americans in the past.  It hasn't had the best track record.  

von

As usual Von, my friend, most of our disagreements are just going to have to stand. But I always feel satisfied after our arguments that we have clarified those disagreements.

Here are some things I think still worth disputing (aside from the tremendous question of what America is -- which, in short, is the subject of most serious political debate in a republic):

(3) We have crossed all of those lines before, sadly, but this would be a new one. It would entail the first prominent instance of the taking up of one of the oldest and greatest religious wars on these shores. Where 9/11 was an attack on a nation, this would be (apparently) an attack on a religion -- the religion, namely, that is native to this land. I fail to see how (again, if this proves to be an attack on Christians qua Christians) this can be anything other than a very frightening and darkly portentous new thing.

Moreover, the same fear that you advance with respect to Muslim Americans, is a fear that has been suggested with respect to Jewish and Catholic Americans in the past.  It hasn't had the best track record.

Yes, it is true that this question has been raised with respect to others, but we cannot allow our judgments about past fears blind us to present concerns. If it is true that a Muslim can only become a loyal citizen of a non-Muslim country by apostasy, then there is simply no precedent in Christianity (or Judaism, as far as I know.) And if it is true, then we have a very serious problem.

Islam is Evil. I know of few other religions (Thuggism, for example) in which being a devout practitioner of a faith means one becomes an indecent human being.

You can't be a devout Muslim who believes in what the Koran and the other three books of Islam teaches, who wishes to put those teachings into practice, and not be a bad human being.

Islam is one of the worst and cruelest misguidings of life that people have produced.

That's not true of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Ba Hai-sim, Sikhism, and so forth.

Judge the tree by its fruits -- unparalleled evil, oppression, ignorance, cruelty, and self-righteousness. Not even paganism was so vile which produced Stoicism, and other philosophical/spiritual disciplines.

....but having known more than a few Muslims -- friends, co-workers -- who were apparently devout and apparently decent individuals, it is quite obviously not ipso facto a one-way ticket to being "a bad human being."

That being said, you are quite wrong about the comparative merits of other religions you mention: Sikhism, for example, has a quite bloody warrior (and terrorist) tradition; and classical paganism only looks good if you leave out the human sacrifice, Dionysian lynch mobs, etc.

of "bad" is.

....I'm assuming it means "incapable of being a productive member of Western society."

1. Hinduism: burning women who become widows. The Thugi cult I also believe sprang from Hinduism. The Tamil Tigers.

Buddhism: Aum Shinrikyo

Christianity: Crusades. Spanish Inquisition. Oklahoma City, to a point. Abortion clinic bombings.

If you want to talk about opression and self-righteousness, let's mention colonialism and slavery.  

Sikhism: Sikh terrorists in the Punjab.

Let's include Islam to make it clear that I'm not exempting it: Sunni extremism, Hizballah, and more.

You care to compare and contrast in a bit more scholarly way?

2. Have you read the Qur'an? And I don't mean pulling out selected quotes strung together

..."phat", "awesome", "slick", "groovy", and "bad-a mofo", then it's all good. :-) But don't worry, Christians can be cool too.

For the life of me I cannot understand why Christians ought to feel some great shame for the Crusades. Is it or is it not true that the lands conquered in what is now Turkey and parts of the Middle East by the Arabs after the rise of Islam, were Christian lands -- Christian by peaceful conversion? I need merely name a few great Christian cities of antiquity to answer that question: Antioch, Ephesus, Hippo, Nicaea, not to mention Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc.

Now: were their brigands, madmen, and murderers among the Crusaders? Of course -- just as there are in any large army. There were madmen and murderers among the American and Brits and Canadians who liberated France in 1944, yet no one calls into question the justice of the liberation itself.

The principle behind the Crusades was just -- to take back for Christendom what was taken from her by force. We may of course question the prudence of attempting to vindicate this just cause by recourse to war, but I don't think we can really gainsay the justice of the cause itself.

you'd already be banned.  Sickening.

....about an incident involving Muslim anti-Semites in northern Virginia, it was Judith Weiss, I believe, who contradicted my assertion that those people should be expelled from their school with an exhortation that they should have instead been engaged and shown differently.  She had a point.

Perhaps a similar opportunity here.

For my part, I share many of this man's premises -- I do think basic tenets of Islam are the direct cause of much of the social ills we see in the Muslim world today -- even as I don't share his conclusions.  Hopefully I'll be able to be as forebearing when someone erupts with the same broad critique of Christianity.

Maybe it's just me, but talk about holy wars to take back territory "for Christendom" seems a bit weird in our current political context.  I'm sure that is, at least partially, how the folks involved thought about it at the time.  Do you still think about it that way now?  Your comparison of the Crusades to WWII makes me wonder.

I sincerely do not mean this as a derogatory statement toward you personally, but this kind of language reminds me more than a little of Zawahiri's talk about not being driven from Andalusia again.

What are you getting at here?

Thanks -

I have defended the idea of religious war in this space before:

The idea of religious war, I confess, does not fill me with horror. It certainly does not fill me with any more horror than the idea of patriotic war; and considerably less than the idea of humanitarian war, or the idea of imperial war. [more]

What I am getting at is that the Crusades were a defensible endeavor. I am not calling for a Crusade, but I am lamenting what was lost of what had been for so long the very cradle of Christian civilization.

Paul -

Thanks for the reply.  A couple of thoughts.

First, thanks for the link to your earlier essay.  It was quite interesting, and thought provoking.  I think you give some words -- liberalism, religion, war -- meanings that are specific to the point you want to make, which is fair enough, but the actual words do have meanings of their own, apart from the meanings you want to give them.

Religion is not the same as world view.  War can be used metaphorically to refer, broadly, to struggles or conflicts of all kinds, but real war involves violence.  Liberalism is not the same as a denial of God or a lack of values.

RedState is a venue open to folks giving expression to matters of faith and conscience.  I will therefore offer my thoughts on religious war in the context of Christianity.  

I do not see Christians called to religious war in the sense of doing violence to others in the name of, or in defense of, their religious faith.  I find self-defense, at both a personal and national level, absolutely justifiable.  I find the use of force in defense of others who are threatened with harm equally justifiable.  Christ, however, does not need us to protect him, or to bring about his kingdom through force of arms.

Christ famously declared that he came to bring not peace, but a sword.  Christ is worthy to bear that sword.  We're not.

Unlike you, the idea of religious war, in the real meaning of the words "religion" and "war", does indeed fill me with horror.

To eschew euphemism, and to speak bluntly with short words, concerning the matter at hand.

Islam has a tradition of not separating civil and religious authority.  It also has a tradition of spreading through military conquest.  Over the last few hundred years, traditionally Muslim countries have been bested by the West, militarily, politically, economically, and otherwise.  These factors, and perhaps others, have yielded a movement within modern Islam that seeks the establishment of an authoritarian, theocratic, and specifically Islamic state through violence, including terror.

That movement is the enemy we face.  We should exert ourselves to defeat it through whatever means are required, including war.  That movement is based in, and justifies itself by, the religious belief of its adherents.  This does not give us the right to claim an equal religious justification for fighting it.

The Islamic jihadis slander the name of God by claiming divine authority for what they do.  Let's not do the same.

My more than two cents.

Cheers -

The doctrine of just war, derived from St. Augustine and Grotian, is thus: according to Christian values, absolute directives such as "Thou shalt not kill" do not apply to those who commit aggression, for they then forfeit their immunity to violence.  The "thou shalt not kill" therefore becomes "thou shalt not murder", for killing in self-defense or in the defense of others is not murder.

Don't believe this is the case. It is a question of quality of translations not a shift in theology.

And, as you know, the Koran is not the sole source of Islamic authority.

Doverspa -

Here is a list, assembled by someone with perhaps far too much time on their hands, of passages from the Quran which contain commands to kill infidels.  

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Before anyone seizes on this as evidence that Muslims are inherently murderous bad neighbors, I'd suggest a comparison with the old testament books of Leviticus, Joshua, and Judges.  Those with concordances handy might consider a word study on "smite".

Cheers -

The Qur'an does not call for killing non-believers for their unbelief as casus belli in and of itself, but it does have a very Jacksonian description of "just war". See Augustine's comment regarding "kill" vs "murder"

I did a good takedown of Bin Laden's call to jihad some time ago, and also took on the "apes and pigs" meme as well:

http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2002/11/jews-are-not-apes-and-pigs.html

http://www.altmuslim.com/opinion_comments.php?id=795_0_25_0_C

Josh and I have to agree to disagree as before on this, most likely, but I'm plugging my earlier posts for the benefit of anyone else who may be interested.

Amos, I have blogged on the interpretations of those verses before. See:

http://unmedia.blogspot.com/2002_07_29_unmedia_archive.html#85293220

http://www.altmuslim.com/opinion_comments.php?id=795_0_25_0_C

Aziz -

I agree that context is essential.  That's the reason for my comparison of the Quranic passages with similar passages from the OT.  Islam was established by a small community of believers in a hostile context.  They had to, literally, fight in order to survive.  That context, no doubt, informs many of the passages cited.

To be clear -- I did not pass along the link as evidence of the bloodthirstiness of Muslims, or of the inherently violent nature of Islam.  I believe in neither of those things.

I look forward to checking out your prior posts.

Cheers -