Replies

"How does the Christian principle of martyrdom compare to that of the Muslim? "

Your answer comes from the material you linked:

Martyrdom consists of the death imposed on one who wills to remain constant in his confession of faith, rather than to deny that confession. Martyrdom entails death; only that one who dies for the faith is called a “martyr.” However, and this is a second observation, the death imposed on the martyr is the result of a judgment to death. And a third observation: the judgment to death imposed on the martyr is due to the refusal of the martyr to confess and to sacrifice to false gods.

Any muslim who dies in war is considered a martyr. But by Christian standards, none of them are martyrs. Their victims, being killed for their religion, come closer to our conception of martyrs, except that they had little choice and didn't see it coming.

In the US, martyrdom doesn't exist in the classic sense. There exists the possibility of confrontation with the powers that be which could result in the loss of your children, under certain conditions, or the closing of your school, or some similar penalty. To take a choice intentionally which could result in this kind of civil penalty is a kind of martyrdom.

I would also grant the title of martyr in examples such as some of the civil rights marchers who willingly marched into beatings, and willingly confronted hooligans with and without badges. Such confrontations cost some of them their lives, which they had reason to expect.

To me, martyrdom carries with it an element of choice. To be a martyr, you have to have seen it coming, and voluntarily took the steps that led you into a fatal confrontation for a higher purpose than your own life.

In that sense, a soldier could be a martyr, if his purpose in serving was to oppose evil with his life and his body. In such a case, the men who died in the sands at Normandy, for example, were martyrs.

This might seem to parallel the muslim idea of martyrdom, where any muslim who dies in battle is a martyr, but it differs on one major point: The muslim "martyrs" we most commonly hear about are murderers. A murderer is not a martyr, though his victims might be. A soldier in a just cause is not a murderer. His voluntary surrender of his life is a kind of martyrdom.

Just my opinion, though.

I concur with your position...and feel you have effectively presented your position (and, mine).

In conclusion, I have a problem with any individual who wears his ideology ( or religion) on his sleeve.

IMO, today Western Civilization is facing a re-newed threat from long dormant elements of Islam, which take the guidance contained in the Qur'an quite literally.

This ideological war, IMO, is a continuation of the struggle that has bound the Civilizations in conflict since the 7th Century. Nothing new, here, except our collective National ignorance of the origins and intensity of the struggle.

I suggest Sam Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" as a primer. Bernard Lewis also presents the argument very well -- and he is a magnificent wordsmith.

In a nutshell -- hold onto your hat!! This one is for real, and will test our national resolve in so many ways. I only hope we are up to the challenge. Cheers ! DKP

"In that sense, a soldier could be a martyr, . . .

Thanks for your post.

Like the word "hero," the word "martyr" can, and has, gained a wider meaning. Most people think of martyrdom as giving one's life for any cause. In fact, it often does not even entail giving up one's life, but only giving in to a power greater than oneself.

There is no question that suicide bombers are giving up their own lives while taking others along for the ride. To me the application of the word "martyr" in this case is an abuse; an affront to those who quietly let their lives be taken because they knew life ultimately has an Author who creates and sustains the same.

In that sense, a soldier could be a martyr, if his purpose in serving was to oppose evil with his life and his body. In such a case, the men who died in the sands at Normandy, for example, were martyrs.

The nineteenth century essayist Orestes Brownson made a similar point:

"Loyalty," Brownson writes, "is the highest, noblest, and most generous of human virtues, and is the human element of that sublime love or charity which the inspired Apostle tells us is the fulfillment of the law." Loyalty is more specifically human or particular than the supernatural virtue of charity. And charity cannot replace loyalty as a political or national passion. So Christianity elevates "civic virtues to the rank of religious virtues [by] making loyalty a matter of conscience." Brownson even asserts that "he who dies on the battlefield fighting for his country ranks with him who dies at the stake for his faith." More precisely, "Civic virtues are themselves religious virtues, or at least virtues without which there are no religious virtues, since no man who does not love his brother does or can love God."(source)

Any search through pre-20th century literature is bound to find similar examples, like this Hopkins poem, not to mention the tradition of chivalry. Why then the change, I wonder? Perhaps because General Patton's stand has prevailed: the rhetoric of war is no longer about dying for one's country(if it ever was), but in making the other sunavabitch die for his.