Following is an open letter circulated by The Federalist from a Marine Corps officer serving in Iraq.
“This is an open letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "Islamic Response," and the rest of the so-called al-Qa'ida "insurgents" in Iraq and elsewhere. We don't have an e-mail address for these swine -- though we are closing in on their snail-mail address, but we are forwarding this letter to Federalist Patriots around the world in the hope you good people will forward it to as many other Patriots as possible to rally prayer and support for our fellow Marine, Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun. Should these al-Qa'ida pigs spill his blood, we want them to rest assured that the contents of this letter will eventually be nailed to their foreheads. Thank you for your assistance.)
To al-Qa'ida terrorists in Iraq:
I see that you have captured a U.S. Marine, and that you plan to cut off his head if your demands are not met. Big mistake. Before you carry out your threat I suggest you read up on Marine Corps history. The Japanese tried the same thing on Makin Island and in a few other places during World War Two, and came to regret it. Go ahead and read about what then happened to the mighty Imperial Army on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They paid full price for what they did, and you will too.
You look at America and you see a soft target, and to a large extent you are right. Our country is filled with a lot of spoiled children who drive BMWs, sip decaf lattes and watch ridiculous reality TV shows. They are for the most part decent, hard working citizens, but they are soft. When you cut off Nick Berg's head those people gasped, and you got the media coverage you sought, and then those people went back to their lives. This time it is different. We also have a warrior culture in this country, and they are called Marines. It is a brotherhood forged in the fire of many wars, and the bond between us is stronger than blood. While it is true that this country has produced nitwits like John Kerry, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jane Fonda who can be easily manipulated by your gruesome tactics, we have also produced men like Jason Dunham, Brian Chontosh and Joseph Perez. If you don't recognize those names you should. They are all Marines who distinguished themselves fighting to liberate Iraq, and there will be many more just like them coming for you.
Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was "The Marine Corps Builds Men." You will soon find out just how true that is. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight. Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims. If you truly represented the interest of the Iraqi people you would not be ambushing those who come to your country to repair your power plants, or sabotage the oil pipelines which fuel the Iraqi economy. Your agenda is hate, plain and simple.
When you raise that sword over your head I want you to remember one thing. Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you. Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us. If you think the Marines were tough on you when they were cleaning out Fallujah a few weeks ago you haven't seen anything yet. If you want to know what it feels like to have the Wrath of God called down upon you then go ahead and do it. We are not Turkish truck drivers, or Pakistani laborers, or independent contractors hoping to find work in your country. We are the United States Marines, and we will be coming for you.”
Michael Ledeen on the pressure that the prospect of democracy in Iraq is creating in Islamic republics, and Iran's race to create a nuclear bomb. Worth reading.
I do not often find reasons to write optimistically about the spiritual direction of Islam. National Review today published an article by Steven Stalinsky about the efforts of a number of Muslim intellectuals pushing for for moderation, and specifically agitating against the bigotry of Wahhabism. Worth reading.
It is reported, but not conclusively verified, that Keith Maupin, an Army specialist was murdered by Islamists today. I pray for his soul, and for the comfort and solace of his family and friends. His sacrifice is noted- he will not be forgotten.
I have been on holiday, seeing good friends marry in San Francisco, and enjoying stellar weather in the city by the Bay. (This is an excuse for not having blogged recently.) I woke early this morning to learn that the handover in Iraq occured two days earlier than planned in order to thwart the violent intentions of the Islamist terrorists in that country. I have been filled with a sense of optimism about what remains a good possibility in Iraq- a second representative government in the Middle East (Israel being the first). This, despite the media having done their best to downplay the great importance of what has occurred. The New York Times conceded that the handover was two days early, but it's coverage was peppered with questions about, "how much control [the new] government will exercise, particularly over the 160,000 troops from the United States, Britain and other countries that will remain here, or even over Iraq's own army and police." No amount of media cyncism will kill my buzz. Congratulations to Iraq on a first small step toward a great future.
Michael Moore has established a "war room" to counter attacks against "Farenheit 9/11." In interviews Moore promised legal action against anyone who "slanders" his work by questioning its accuracy or integrity. Christopher Hitchens, who posseses acumen and integrity Moore can only dream about, has taken up the challenge in a devastating review of the movie. One can only wish that Moore would have the temerity to put Hitchens on the stand and attack his movie review- an intellectual bloodbath would ensue and only Hitchens would standing at the end. For lack of courtroom drama, read the review and feel sorry for poor, fat, stupid, obnoxious Michael Moore.
The publication of Bill Clinton's autobiography has occasioned all manner of comment on its accuracy and inaccuracy. Of course, the issue about which most people are curious is the disgraced former President's literary treatment of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. While Lewinsky and her blue dress will always be the primary memory people associate with Clinton, there were many other women.
The Washington Times today published an article discussing the women Clinton neglected to mention, or underplayed in his autobiography. They include:
"- Dolly Kyle Browning, a real estate lawyer and Clinton high school classmate who said she had an off-and-on-again romance with Mr. Clinton for 30 years.
- Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas who said she had a four-month affair with him in 1983.
- Connie Hamzy, a self-proclaimed rock-and-roll groupie, who said Mr. Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool.
- Juanita Broaddrick, a gubernatorial campaign volunteer who said Mr. Clinton raped her during a nursing-home-operators convention in Little Rock in April 1978.
- Bobbie Ann Williams, a one-time Little Rock prostitute who said Mr. Clinton fathered a child by her when he was the governor of Arkansas.
- Eileen Wellstone, an English woman who said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969.
- Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fund-raiser who said Mr. Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a 1991 campaign trip, pinned her against the wall and put his hand under her dress.
- Christy Zercher, an airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane, who said Mr. Clinton exposed himself and grabbed her breasts.
- Lencola Sullivan, a former Miss Arkansas and fourth runner-up in the Miss America pageant.
- Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas and Miss America.
- Susie Whitacre, press aide to Mr. Clinton when he was governor."
Opinion Journal on Monday published a speech delivered by Anne Bayefsky to a United Nations conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding. The speech is compelling and a must read.
Kim Sun Il was murdered by Islamists today. I pray for his soul, and for the comfort of his family in their loss.
America is grateful for Korea's alliance in the liberation of Iraq. We grieve with you over the senseless savage killing of one of your sons. We will not forget his sacrifice.
Satan's foot soldiers have again demonstrated the endless darkness that fills their hearts. It is past time for right thinking muslims to express as one an intolerance for hatred. The world waits for Islam to prove itself an ally of peace, to demonstrate that Islam has no patience for Islamism. The world is sceptical, and for good reason- Islam has bloody borders. It is past time for peace minded muslims to take back their mosques, their Friday sermons and their faith. It is past time, but is it too late?
You wouldn’t know it from reading the front pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post, but questions about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda linger. The Times did its best on Thursday last week to spin conclusions presented by the 911 Commission as consistent with what will be in the Commission’s final report. As often happens at the Times, news that is ignored by the journalistic staff is broken by William Safire or David Brooks writing from the editorial page. A case in point is Safire’s editorial today, which correctly characterized the nature of the findings presented last week. Safire wrote, “The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks… it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff… the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Times reported this morning on new information about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, speaking on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, said that evidence suggests an officer of Saddam Hussien's Fedayeen militia was a "very prominent member of al Qaeda." That Lehman conceded that the evidence for this link requires substantiation does not make the story less than newsworthy. Is the Times ignoring a story because it is contrary to the reality the Times seeks to create?
Finally, what of cryptic suggestions by Vladimir Putin last week that Russian intelligence services received information that after 911 and before the liberation of Iraq, Saddam Hussien was planning terrorist strikes against the United States. This would seem to be worthy of investigation, but the Times and the Post are silent. Demosphia last week wrote an interesting take on the Putin story.
Islamists in Saudi Arabia beheaded Paul Johnson today. I pray for Johnson's soul, and for the comfort of his family and friends.
Islamists, and indeed muslims who accept any part of the Islamist agenda, are mistaken in believing that God is for such a depraved act. They are also mistaken if they believe that such acts will lead free people to submit to dhimmitude. We will not forget Paul Johnson. We will not rest until the evil of Islamism is driven in retreat into the shadows of hell.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9-11 Commission, yesterday released conclusions about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The New York Times this morning reported that the Commission’s conclusions “weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.”
The Times characterized Mr. Bush’s scorecard as follows: “Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.”
No banned biological or chemical weapons have been found? The Times is lying. It has reported on the discovery of a sarin gas shell improvised as roadside bomb in Iraq, and on briefings given to the United Nations Security Council about the export from Iraq of dual-use equipment capable of creating weapons of mass destruction.
On the second point, public opinion polling in Iraq means little at this stage in that country’s liberation. Recall that public opinion in countries behind the iron curtain fluctuated for years after the defeat of Soviet communism, and that some in those countries still have lingering fondness for the old tyranny.
As to the Times’s third point, the number of al Qaeda associates in a country is no absolute indicator of al Qaeda’s links into the country. Reporting on the same subject, the Washington Post wrote that bin Laden, “”explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996,” and those contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda continued “after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996.”
Characteristically, the Times sought to spin the Commission’s findings in a manner helpful to John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Toward the end of the article it assured readers that, “Mr. Bush would be dogged through the rest of the campaign by questions about whether the war was necessary, justified and sufficiently well planned.” Remember when economic news was its front page priority? Now that the economy is moving firmly in the direction of growth and recovery, much to the President’s political benefit, the Times hopes of a Kerry presidency require spinning Iraq.
Michael Novak provided much needed clarity on the subject of politics and the eucharist in National Review yesterday.
He wrote, "in Catholic teaching every person must follow the verdict of his or her own conscience, even if that means breaking communion with the teaching of the Church. The Church is for free women and men, not for slaves. But this freedom, in those few matters that are as important as the taking of innocent life in abortion, does confront the legislator with a choice: either to remain in communion or to leave."
Worth reading.
The Washington Post this morning editorialized against President Bush’s denial of funding to non governmental organizations sympathetic to abortion. The Post took exception to what it characterized as the Bush administration’s decision to minimize funding for and participation in international conferences where pro abortion groups hold sway. It also complained about the denial of funding for groups that while not specifically focused on abortion nonetheless team with pro abortion groups in delivery of services. The Post opined that, “the attempt to deny conference platforms to groups that oppose the administration's view is inimical both to free speech and to scientific inquiry.”
This is moral relativity and sloppy thinking taken to a new extreme. The Post conceded the administration’s right to a pro life position: “Abortion will always be an agonizing issue, and the right balance between abstinence and contraception is a fair subject for debate.” At the same time, the Post argued that the administration must not translate its position into policy: “canceling grants that would have been used to allow delegates from developing countries to attend, is to drag the battles over abortion and conservative values into forums where they have no place.”
Only an idiot would argue that denying funds to pro abortion groups threatens free speech. In fact, it is the Post’s argument that poses the greater threat to free speech. If an administration must fund the very groups that oppose its policy positions, then the voice of the people who elected the administration will be neutered.
Victor Davis Hanson focused on the West's will to win the war against terrorism in an article published by National Review this morning. Worth reading.
By John Julian Vecchione
I just read Father Andrew Greeley's unhinged analysis of the present moment on RealClearPolitics' website. In it, Father Greeley compares the present liberation of Iraq with Hitler's aggression in search of Lebensraum. Father Greeley also attacks the "neo-cons" for driving us into this war: a war approved by both houses of Congress and entered only after 17 different U.N resolutions on Saddam Hussein.
The good prelate mentions nothing about our more than 35 nation allies (who have lost men during the war), nor the sarin and mustard gas canisters found in Iraq, or the completely illegal missiles, or the funding of terrorists, hiding of Abu Nidal and other terrorists in Baghdad, the mass graves, corrupt oil for food starvation technique, the wars of aggression by Saddam Hussein against his neighbors or the assassination attempt against an ex-President of the United States. Nor does he address the Al Queda links detailed by Stephen Hayes in his new book.
Father Greeley, a man of the Left, uses the Big Lie, effectively. Rather than seeing the removal of Saddam's fascist regime as a pure good, like the removal of Mussolini's and Hitler's, Father Coughlin compares George Bush to the latter dictator. Worse yet, Father Greeley publishes this in and from Berlin! Just as the notorious Father Coughlin accused FDR of truckling to the Jews and getting America involved in an unnecessary war, Father Greeley hurls the "neocon" epithet and for good measure blames Bush's Protestantism for the war. Yes, the aggressive Jews and the blinkered Protestants always combining to lay waste to innocent middle-eastern mass killers. I will not even go into the counter historical nonsense Father Cough...Greeley pedals as a lead up to his slanders.
The final matter however is his paean to John Kerry. A man who voted for the war, says it was necessary and he would change only how it was conducted (for instance with his vote it would be conducted without the 87 billion dollars needed support the troops). Now, personally I think John Kerry is lying to preserve his political viability, but Greeley, who supports him, must as well. Otherwise, how is the prosecution of the Iraq war, which John Kerry says he would have done, and would continue, Hitleresque under George Bush and Homeric under John Kerry? How does the Marshal Plan to rebuild Europe and the Berlin airlift to preserve it from Stalinism lauded by Greeley differ in kind from the aid now give to Iraq and the military efforts to prevent Iran and Syria from conquering it?
Worse, he adds fuel to anti-Americanism in Germany, a country America has no cause to look to for moral uplift, and where anti-intellectual leftist pap like this does not have to be imported. Germany used all of its diplomatic, economic and military might in the 40's to support mass murdering dictatorships against America, and it uses all of its diplomatic, economic and military resources to support a mass murdering dictatorship against America today. It had a media savvy priestly anti-American admirer then, and evidently it has one today.
Father Greeley should stick to frothy, racy, novels set in Chicago, and forgo any analysis of geopolitics. He embarrasses his faith (and mine); his country, his city, and his publisher.
Paul Krugman proved he cares not a whit for truthfulness when he joined the “I told you so” chorus upon the collapse of Enron. Having been on Enron’s payroll as a special advisor, and having written positive things about Enron prior to the company’s collapse, he owed his readers a disclaimer before lashing out at the hand that fed him. His compensation by Enron was not self-reported, however, and when it came to light he was slow to acknowledge and quick to dismiss the conflict of interest.
While ethics and truth may be good for the common man, Krugman does not allow them to guide his intellectual path. As a result, much of his writing demonstrates a twisted view of reality. Donald Luskin and the Krugman Truth Squad have done wonderful work exposing Krugman’s lies and distortions. Krugman’s distortion of Ronald Reagan’s economic accomplishments was published in the New York Times on Tuesday. A more dishonest hack job is hard to imagine. Luskin demolishes Krugman point by point in his latest piece, published yesterday in National Review. Worth reading!
The Wall Street Journal today published an editorial by Paul Wolfowitz that makes the case for optimism about prospects for Iraq. Wolfowitz opined at length about steps the United States will take to secure the liberation of Iraq after the Coalition Provisional Authority transfers power to the Interim Iraqi Government on June 30. The steps include creating security forces to support the political transition of power, rebuilding the civil infrastructure, increasing international support for the transition to democracy, and realizing constitutional self-government by the end of 2005.
While the media marches to the drumbeat of terror by emphasizing the latest Islamist atrocities, the people of Iraq look beyond the headlines for hope. Wolfowitz wrote about successes the media ignores- successes that create momentum that favors democracy. He wrote about newly constituted security forces that are giving Iraqis confidence in the United States promise of self-government. He wrote about the increased availability of government health and education services funded by oil revenues.
Wolfowitz emphasized the gratitude of the Iraqi people for their liberation. He wrote that Iyad Allawi, the new president interrupted his Arabic introduction of the new government, saying, “I would like to say this in English. I would like to thank the coalition led by the United States for the sacrifices they have provided in the process of the liberation of Iraq.”
The media, leftists in America and Europe, and elitists in the United Nations will not recognize the liberation of Iraq as a success. They long to see America fail. They cling to the hope that the Iraqi people are so hostile to America that they would rather lose liberty than see America succeed. In fact, many Iraqis have died to preserve freedom. Wolfowitz quoted an Iraqi blogger named Omar: “We cannot . . . protect every single person, including our leaders and the higher officials who make favorite targets for the terrorists--but we can make their attempts go in vain by making our leadership replaceable.”
Omar may be an Iraqi “Patrick Henry”. His is the ultimate refutation of the Islamist definition of a martyr as a murderer who dies while killing innocents. There is no stronger response to Islamist depravity than a people willing to be killed in order to preserve liberty. Omar is in effect saying, “Give me liberty or give me death.” If the Iraqi people embrace this cry, their freedom is assured.
The New York Times today reported that equipment and materials that might have been used by Saddam Hussein in illicit weapons programs have been shipped abroad since the liberation of Iraq. The Times report resulted from a closed door briefing of the United Nations Security Council by its Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMVIC). Demetrius Perricos, acting executive chairman of UNMVIC told the Security Council that equipment and materials bearing tags place by U.N. weapons inspectors had been discovered for sale in countries neighboring Iraq. The “dual use” equipment and materials had commercial applications as well as the potential for use in weapons programs.
Hasn’t the Times insisted of late that the lack of physical evidence means that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Didn’t the Times recently apologize for its journalistic failure to expose the errors in President Bush’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to create weapons and was using it? I am confused. If there was no weapons making capacity, and there were no weapons to find, why isn’t the Times, in the aftermath of its mea culpa, exposing the errors that are being fed to the Security Council.
In a previous entry, I referenced an essay on torture by Marc Bowden that appeared in the October edition of The Atlantic Monthly. Bowden applied some of his thinking about torture to the Abu Ghraib scandal in an article published by the Atlantic in its current issue. Bowden was unable to conclude whether the abuse was systematic, or a result of a lack of supervision. While he reiterated that circumstances can sometimes require coercive action, he argued (correctly I think) that in most of the Abu Ghraib cases such circumstances were not present. He argued for thorough investigation and punishment of the responsible parties. He also argued that the scandal has caused great harm to the American initiative in the Middle East.
Pope John Paul II has published two books that teach Catholic approaches to love, marriage and sexuality. “The Theology of the Body” builds from biblical revelation and church tradition, a comprehensive understanding of God’s plan for men and women. “Love and Responsibility” tackles the same subject matter from a philosophical point of view. Both books define Catholic teaching, not as mindless and intrusive taboos (the view held by much of society), but as the holistic and meaningful experience of love and participation in the divine plan.
The New York Times this morning reported on the popularity of the Pope’s teachings amongst devout Catholics. Not surprisingly, the Times reporting was skeptical that the Theology of the Body is anything more than window dressing, or a new age repackaging of the traditional Christian message. The Times opined, “Underneath it all, the new theology does not change the basic rules. But some say it presents them in a more appealing way.”
To emphasize its point, the Times quoted Luke Timothy Johnson, a former priest and critic of the theology of the body: "It's a feel-good message, but under that is this notion of normality, which is deeply repressive and exclusive." The Times also quoted the overtly anti-Catholic Frances Kissling: “…the theology remains negative at the core and excludes whole categories of people - gays, the remarried or anyone having sex outside of marriage.”
The Times and its fellow travelers can not diminish the Pope’s powerful message that the social fragmentation experienced in America and Europe as a result of movements toward individualism and permissiveness need not be accepted as inevitable or irreversible. The Pope presents an expansive view of human sexuality that makes sense of Church teaching and liberates marriage and human sexuality from secular clichés. That the Pope's teaching is compelling is evidenced by the popularity of Theology of the Body and Love and Responsiblity study groups.
On this day fifteen years ago, students and workers protesting corruption and lack of government accountablity were massacred in Tiananmen Square. To date, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) denies the massacre and allows no public or private discussion of the blood on its hands. The New York Times this morning reported on steps taken by the butchers of Beijing to silence those who would keep alive public memory of Tiananmen Square. The Washington Post this morning reported on years of harrassment and oppression endured by those listed on the CCP's "Most Wanted" list after Tiananmen Square.
In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal reasoned that the CCP seeks economic prosperity to justify its sole possession of political power in China. The Journal wondered whether success in creating a middle class will ultimately mean the end to one party rule in China. There is a record of democracy growing out of middle class prosperity and this pattern may prove prophetic for China. Speculation about the future, however, does nothing for ordinary people who today hunger and thirst for freedom. The Chinese people can be sated with consumerism, but they will not be free. Prosperity has no meaning without freedom to pursue objective truth.
The CCP has a pattern of its own. Abuses are denied and overlooked until those who profited from them are dead, at which point the CCP uses the cathartic effect of public acknowledgement of the past to bolster the reputation of current leaders. There is no objective truth in this pattern because ultimately, it is the CCP and not individual leaders that must be held accountable. Until this happens, until one-party rule is ended, until the Chinese people are free, Tiananmen Square should shape every thought about China.
Never forget Tiananmen Square.
The Governing Council appointed by the United States after liberating Iraq replaced itself yesterday with a caretaker government that will assume transitional sovereignty on June 30. The Governing Council, an initial step in the transition to representative government in Iraq, was charged with selecting leaders broadly characteristic of Iraqi society for roles in the caretaker government. When it assumes transitional sovereignty, the caretaker government- itself but a step in the transition to representative democracy- will move Iraq toward a parliament of sorts, and elections. Following elections, the Iraqi people will freely govern themselves.
There is much to celebrate, though you would not know it by reading the New York Times. The liberation of Iraq is bearing ripe fruit despite determined efforts by Islamists to make it whither on the vine, and western journalists to see it doing so. A government in the Middle East has voluntarily transferred power to another government! What seems commonplace in America is remarkable in a region where only Israel has a representative government, and where Israel is portrayed as evil by neighboring governments who themselves would not dream of elections.
While much work and many months remain before an Iraqi government is capable of full sovereignty, the transfer of power must have horrified Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In February of this year he wrote a letter to al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq stating, “If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.”
It is obvious what Zarqawi has to lose. The pessimism of the Times is less easily explained. Success in Iraq is success for President Bush in his bid for reelection. While the Times may claim the mantle of unbiased journalism, their reporting betrays their Democrat loyalties. Rather than focusing on the peaceful transition of power, they focus on the continuing presence and influence of the United States in Iraq. The Times quoted an unnamed diplomat at the United Nations calling the transition “… a charade.” The Times also quoted a European diplomat who said, "It's clear that not only the U.S., but also the U.N., have ambitions for Iraq that are lower and lower by the day."
No doubt, al-Zarqawi would agree.
My girlfriend was in Manhattan recently and went to see the great gash that remains from the Islamist terror attack on September 11. She happened to visit nearby St. Paul’s Chapel, which gained renown as a place of rest for exhausted fire and rescue workers following the attack. She was surprised to find Muslim prayer cards officially distributed by the Chapel. On the front, the cards bear a photograph of the chapel, datable by a poster in the background to Easter of 2002. On the reverse side the cards bear the title “Muslim Prayer for Peace” and the following inscription:
In the name of Allah,
the beneficent, the merciful.
Praise be to the Lord of the
universe who has created us and
made us into tribes and nations
that we may know each other, not that
we may despise each other.
If the enemy incline towards peace, do
thou also incline towards peace, and
trust God, for the Lord is the one that
heareth and knoweth all things.
And the servants of God,
most gracious are those who walk on
the Earth in humility, and when we
address them, we say “PEACE.”
I am skeptical about the rationale behind a Christian church dispensing Muslim prayer cards, especially a church so physically and emotionally tied to an unconscionable act of war inspired by Islam. Ecumenism has no value if the intent to dialogue is not embraced by all parties. While the existence of Muslim prayer cards in St. Paul’s may evince a desire on the part of some Muslims to reach out to Christians, I doubt very much that any mosque would dispense Christian prayer cards to promote peace and understanding. What is more, while the prayer on the card may be intended to promote peace, the verses of the Koran from which it is derived are properly construed as promoting bigotry and violence.
I have not discovered the origin of this Prayer (I would be interested in hearing from anyone with information about the Prayer's origin), but a Google search results in hundreds of references to it. For this reason I assume it is widely used by Muslims, and frequently referenced by non-Muslims. The Prayer has four parts:
- a formulaic Islamic invocation;
- a statement that God made tribes and nations for peaceful purposes;
- instruction that peaceful enemies be left alone;
- and an assertion that God’s servants are humble and should be addressed peacefully.
The Exordium
The first part of the Prayer, “In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful,” is inspired by the first chapter or surah of the Koran, called “The Exordium.” This part of the Prayer could be construed as ecumenical in spirit because it mentions the God that Muslims hold to be common to the three Abrahamic faiths without mentioning the Muslim prophet, Muhammad, who denied the divinity of Christ, and who is not accepted by Christians or Jews.
Muslims will know, however, that this part of the Prayer draws upon The Exordium, which ends with the sentence, “Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favoured, not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray.” (1:7) Prayers of ecumenism and peace should emphasize points of agreement, rather than points of contention. When a phrase used in a prayer with ecumenical purpose is grounded in “scripture” that describes as having gone astray the very people or religion with which one is doing ecumenism, it is not unrealistic to question the sincerity behind the prayer.
The Chambers
The second part of the Prayer, “Praise be to the Lord of the universe who has created us and made us into tribes and nations that we may know each other, not that we may despise each other,” is grounded in the surah called “The Chambers.” This part of the Prayer could be construed as asserting that God created differences between all the people of the earth for purposes of peace. Lacking Koranic context, that is the most obvious conclusion.
The Chambers, however, addresses relations between (1) Muhammad and his followers, (2) his followers themselves, and (3) the Arab peoples in general. Nowhere in this surah is there an indication that it is addressed to a broader non-Muslim or non-Arab audience. Verse 13 reads, “You people! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you in God’s sight is he who is most righteous. God is all-knowing and wise.” (49:13)
Taken in context, the reference to God creating nations and tribes is a reference to the Arab nations and tribes of Muhammad’s day, not to the broader human tribes and nations- then or now. This Muslim and Arab centric view is bolstered by verse 14, which clearly frames the discussion in the context of Arabs who follow Muhammad and the Arabs of the desert: “The Arabs of the desert declare: ‘We are true believers.’ Say: ‘Believers you are not.’ Rather say: ‘We profess Islam,’ for faith has not yet found its way into your hearts. If you obey God and His apostle, He will not deny you the reward of your labours. God is forgiving and merciful.” (49:14)
A prayer for peace between the tribes and nations of the world could be sincerely inspired by a Koranic passage originally intended to address the Arab tribes and nations of the Arab peninsula. Questions about the sincerity of the prayer are appropriate, however, when relevant parts of the passage from which it is drawn encourage violent bigotry. Verse 15 of The Chambers reads, “The true believers are those that have faith in God and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of God. Such are those whose faith is true.” (49:15) These are not peaceful words and they are bound by context to the words used in the Prayer.
The Spoils
The third part of the Prayer, “If the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust God, for the Lord is the one that heareth and knoweth all things,” is grounded in verse 61 of the surah called “The Spoils.” That this part of the Prayer, taken from the Koran, offers peace to Christians who are inclined toward peace does not offset the fact that the same Koranic verse infers that Christians are enemies. In effect, then, Christians are being labeled as enemies on literature distributed in their own church.
The Spoils addresses the duty of all “believers” to fight “unbelievers” and notes that those who so struggle are entitled to the spoils of war. Specifically, The Spoils focuses on the Battle of Badr. Islamic tradition teaches that Muhammad planned to attack an unarmed Meccan caravan, but his plan for easy spoils was disrupted when Mecca sent an army to defend the caravan. During the ensuing Battle of Badr, Muhammad led some 319 men to unexpected victory against the reinforced Meccans who numbered nearly 1,000 men.
Verse 61 reads, “If they incline to peace, make peace with them, and put your trust in God. It is surely He who hears all and knows all. Should they seek to deceive you, God is all-sufficient for you. He has made you strong with His help and rallied the faithful round you, making their hearts one. If you had given away all the riches of the earth, you could not have so united them: but God has united them. He is mighty and wise. (8:61) This is a halfhearted approach to peacemaking. It does not instruct Muslims to be peacefully inclined, but rather to grant peaceful terms only to those who are inclined to make peace. It instructs Muslims to be skeptical about the sincerity of others with the suggestion that they might “… seek to deceive you.”
The verses immediately preceding verse 61 are explicit in advocating violence: “Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to God. All that you give in the cause of God shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged.” (8:59 - 60)
The verses immediately following verse 61 are equally emphatic in their call to violent bigotry:
“Prophet, God is your strength, and the faithful who follow you. Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred: and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. God has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by God’s will, defeat two thousand. God is with those that are steadfast. A prophet may not take captives until he has fought and triumphed in the land. You [Muhammad’s followers] seek the chance gain of this world but He desires for you the world to come. God is mighty and wise. Had there not been a previous writ from God you would have been sternly punished for what you took. Enjoy therefore the good and lawful things which you have gained in war, and fear God. God is forgiving and merciful.” (8:62 – 70)
An important phrase in this surah is that, “… victory comes only from God.” This assertion is a basis for an Islamic theological proof, namely, that the rapid success of Islam in conquering so much of the world was proof of the rightness of Muhammad and Islam. Islamists today- Osama bin Laden among them- use this proof to recruit terrorists like those who murdered more than 3,000 people on 9-11. They argue that God has allowed the decline of Islam because Muslims have ceased combating the unbeliever, and that God will restore glory to Islam when Muslims again take the offensive.
The Spoils can not be properly construed as other than a call to violence, bigotry and theft. It is insulting that this surah inspired a Muslim Prayer for Peace that is used for ecumenical purposes. It is surreal that the same Prayer is distributed by Christians in a Christian church in response to an Islamist act of war.
Al-Furqan
The fourth and final part of the Prayer asserts that God’s servants are humble and should be addressed peacefully, and comes from verse 64 of the surah titled “Al-Furqan.” The Prayer reads, “And the servants of God, most gracious are those who walk on the Earth in humility, and when we address them, we say 'PEACE.'” Here, as in previous parts of the Prayer, Koranic context provides a meaning rather different than the obvious. Compare the language of the Prayer with its inspiration in Al Furqan, “True servants of the Merciful are those who walk humbly on the earth and say: ‘Peace!’ to the ignorant who accost them.” (25:64)
Al Furqan is a response to Muhammad’s detractors. It rebukes those of his contemporaries who viewed him as a fraud, it defends his claim of the Koran as revelation, and it promises the unbelievers no end of torture and suffering in the afterlife. Taken in context, the inspiration for the final part of the Prayer is Muhammad’s anger and frustration over those who did not accept his message. The language in the Prayer, which is derived from Al Furqan, does extend peace to the unbeliever. This offer of peace is insulting, however, because when taken in context, it is addressed to a “them,” defined as ignorant unbelievers who accost Muslims.
Praying For Peace
It is possible to construe the Muslim Prayer for Peace with the assumption that its proponents have the purest ecumenical intentions. However, in doing so, one must blindly untether the prayer from the unfortunate hateful context of its Koranic moorings, and one must ignore the overt labeling of non-Muslims as enemies. This approach, extending every benefit of the doubt, is naive. Islamic theology is well defined and those writing and publishing Muslim prayers can be expected to understand the context of the verses referenced in the prayers they publish.
Islam provides a peaceful framework for religious devotion for hundreds of millions of people in spite of the bigotry and intolerance that shape the Koran. With this in mind, it should be possible to write a Muslim prayer for peace with no contextual references to bigotry and intolerance. It is important to question why a peace prayer that is widely used by Muslims draws upon contextually bigoted and violent Koranic verses. It is imperative to question why such a prayer is being distributed by a Christian church.
* Koranic verses taken from the translation by N.J. Dawood, published by Penguin Classics.