THE WAR: PHASE II

...The war was declared by al-Queda against the United States before September 11, 2001, but the dramatic attack of that date made the war and its character visible. The war is first and primarily against all al-Queda type terrorist groups that have primarily Muslim origins. A large part of these groups are supported by Saudi finances and Wahabbi-type understanding of the militant purpose of the Koran, the desire to convert or coerce the world into Islam. ... [I]t is not simply a "terrorist" war, something to be explained by irrationalism or madness. The terrorism is a calculated instrument of a religious theory about Islam's world mission. Whatever we might think of them, the terrorists take their religion seriously and to explain them primarily in economic, or political, or western ideological terms will never get at the heart of what is happening. ...

The intention of the Islamicists (terrorists) is not modest. It is no less than to take up the cause of the expansion that was stopped and turned back after the Battle of Vienna, September 11, 1683, and by the subsequent scientific, commercial, and industrial revolutions which Muslim states could nor or choose not to imitate. For three hundred years, Islam was quiet, but not converted. This is a religious war, however reluctant we are to call it that. Many, including the Church officials with their own peaceful agenda about Islam, have insisted that this is not a "religious" war. But in the light of the testimony from those who actually pursue it, this position is difficult to maintain, however wise it is to encourage those Muslims who reject the terrorist position. Due to our theories of dialogue, liberalism, and diversity, we are almost incapable of understanding a mind that thinks that Islam is the true religion and that it ought to rule the world. Even less can we understand a fourteen-hundred year expansion, largely by military means, that has lasted over time and awaits the moment in which it can complete itself. A major task in the West as well as in the East has been to prevent this expansion. Many of the small wars around the world today have a Muslim component....

Does this mean that the much talked of distinction between "peaceful Muslims" and "terrorist" ones does not exist? Part of what the war is about is the effort to radicalize and take over Muslim governments that have sought to compromise with modernity or with purely pragmatic and secular purposes. The expansionist position is also a brilliant strategy that sees that the West is, presumably, divided and morally corrupt, at least by Muslim standards. Thus, to many a Muslim radical, the West seems open to be defeated. Not to recognize the religious nature of this war declared on us is to miss the point, and enthusiasm, of what it is about. This unwillingness of the United States so far to react may, of course, be a misreading of the power of the Americans in particular. But it seems clear that if America can be defeated or discredited, little, only perhaps China and India, seems to stand in the way of eventual Muslim success. The mere fact of military victory, however achieved, will justify the effort. The decline of European population, however, already portends its own replacement with more fertile Muslim populations....

This is a new kind of war. A victory in Iraq is not its end. But it is a step in the right direction. The message must be clear. Terrorist attempts to attack civilians in any society deserve to be repressed and those who propose this method and carry it out deserve to be eliminated in a war that is just, careful, accurate, for the good even of the terrorists themselves. They always have the option of stopping their terror voluntarily.

Behind this there must be a much more accurate understanding of the religious nature of this war. There must be more effort actually to engage in the theology that causes it to simmer. Secular theories of development, or poverty, or resentment won't work. Islam is a very closed religion. Very few people are converted. Catholics have sought to engage in "dialogues," on the basis of shared views, those mainly coming from the Old Testament. But Islamic theology rejects the Incarnation and all that goes with it. It is also quite difficult to find a common philosophic basis that stands outside of or before revelational differences. A much more careful, accurate and objective effort to explain how the Koran differs from the Bible, Old and New Testament, must be undertaken, one that can admit that there are significant errors in the Koran about truth, about what Jewish and Christian revelation are about...

How is Islam any different from Christianity in terms of the religion's absolute certainty in it's own definition rightiousness?

It's not a question of subjective certainty. The convinced Marxist-Leninist is as sure of the truth of his "creed" as any religious believer. It's a question of the way the various believers spread their creeds. I would subject each creed to the martyrdom test: what are people willing to do in the name of their faith?

Islam was spread largely by military conquest. It (like Marxism-Leninism) subjects other types of believers to violence and domination. Christians true to their faith take the violence of others upon themselves (eg, St. Lawrence in ancient Rome, St Isaac Jogues in North America among the Indians, St. Maximilian Kolbe in Auschwitz, etc).

You will doubtless hit me over the head with witch-burning, the crusades, the inquisition, etc. The merits of these can be argued. I don't say that Christians haven't done things in the name of the faith that contradict the faith. But those examples represent deviations from Christianity, not its essence. I don't know of any Muslim martyrs who willingly die for their faith and at the same time bless their persecutors. They don't imitate the love displayed by Christ on the cross, they imitate the warrior-prophet Mohammed (If you're going to die, take out as many of the infidels as possible and send them all to Hell). Christ, on the other hand, died that no one might have to go to Hell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.