Homily from the Funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
April 8, 2005
"Follow me." The Risen Lord says these words to Peter. They are his last words to this disciple, chosen to shepherd his flock. "Follow me" - this lapidary saying of Christ can be taken as the key to understanding the message which comes to us from the life of our late beloved Pope John Paul II. Today we bury his remains in the earth as a seed of immortality - our hearts are full of sadness, yet at the same time of joyful hope and profound gratitude.
These are the sentiments that inspire us, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, present here in St. Peter's Square, in neighboring streets and in various other locations within the city of Rome, where an immense crowd, silently praying, has gathered over the last few days. I greet all of you from my heart. In the name of the College of Cardinals, I also wish to express my respects to heads of state, heads of government and the delegations from various countries. I greet the authorities and official representatives of other churches and christian communities, and likewise those of different religions. Next I greet the Archbishops, Bishops, priests, religious men and women and the faithful who have come here from every Continent; especially the young, whom John Paul II liked to call the future and the hope of the Church. My greeting is extended, moreover, to all those throughout the world who are united with us through radio and television in this solemn celebration of our beloved Holy Father's funeral.
Follow me - as a young student Karol Wojtyla was thrilled by literature, the theater, and poetry. Working in a chemical plant, surrounded and threatened by the Nazi terror, he heard the voice of the Lord: Follow me! In this extraordinary setting he began to read books of philosophy and theology, and then entered the clandestine seminary established by Cardinal Sapieha. After the war he was able to complete his studies in the faculty of theology of the Jagiellonian University of Krakow. How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on November 1, 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord. First: "You did not choose me, but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last" (John 15:16). The second saying is: "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11). And then: "As the father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love" (John 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts. "Rise, Let us be on our Way!" is the title of his next-to-last book. "Rise, let us be on our way!" - with these words he roused us from a lethargic faith, from the sleep of the disciples of both yesterday and today. "Rise, let us be on our way!" he continues to say to us even today. The Holy Father was a priest to the last, for he offered his life to God for his flock and for the entire human family, in a daily self-oblation for the service of the Church, especially amid the sufferings of his final months. And this way he became one with Christ, the Good Shepherd who loves his sheep. Finally, "abide in my love: " the Pope who tried to meet everyone, who had an ability to forgive and to open his heart to all, tells us once again today, with these words of the Lord, that by abiding in the love of Christ we learn, at the school of Christ, the art of true love.
Follow me! In July 1958, the young priest Karol Wojtila began a new stage in his journey with the Lord in the footsteps of the Lord. Karol had gone to the Masuri Lakes for his usual vacation, along with a group of young people who loved canoeing. But he brought with him a letter inviting him to call on the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Wyszynski. He could guess the purpose of the meeting: he was to be appointed as the auxiliary Bishop of Krakow. Leaving the academic world, leaving this challenging engagement with young people, leaving the great intellectual endeavor of striving to understand and to interpret the mystery of that creature which is man and of communicating to today's world the Christian interpretation of our being - all this must have seemed to him like losing his very self, losing what had become the very human identity of this young priest. Follow me - Karol Wojtyla accepted the appointment for he heard in the Church's call the voice of Christ. And then he realized how true are the Lord's words: "Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it" (Luke 17:53). Our pope - and we all know this - never wanted to make his own life secure, to keep it for himself, he wanted to give of himself unreservedly, to the very last moment, for Christ and thus also for us. And thus he came to experience how everything which he had given over into the Lord's hands came back to him in a new way. His love of words, of poetry, of literature became an essential part of his pastoral mission and gave his new vitality, new urgency, new attractiveness to the preaching of the Gospel, even when it is a sign of contradiction.
Follow me! In October 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla once again heard the voice of the Lord. Once more there took place that dialogue with Peter reported in the Gospel of this Mass: "Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep!' To the Lord's question, 'Karol, do you love me?' the archbishop of Krakow answered from the depths of his heart: "Lord, you know everything: you know that I love you." The love of Christ was the dominant force in the life of our beloved Holy Father. Anyone who ever saw him pray, who ever heard him preach, knows that. Thanks to his being profoundly rooted in Christ, he was able to bear a burden which transcends merely human abilities: that of being the shepherd of Christ's flock, his universal Church. This is not the time to speak of the specific content of this rich pontificate. I would like only to read two passages of today's liturgy which reflect the central elements of his message. In the first reading, St. Peter says - and with St. Peter, the pope himself - "I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all" (Acts of the Apostles 10:34-36). And in the second reading, St. Paul - and with St. Paul, our late Pope - exhorts us, crying out: "My brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and my crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved" (Philippians 4:1).
Follow me! Together with the command to feed his flock, Christ proclaimed to Peter that he would die a martyr's death. With those words, which conclude and sum up the dialogue on the love and on the mandate of the universal shepherd, the Lord recalls another dialogue, which took place during the Last Supper. There Jesus had said: "Where I am going, you cannot come." Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replied: "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now: but you will follow me afterward" (John 13:33-36). Jesus from the Supper went toward the Cross, went toward his resurrection - he entered into the paschal mystery; and Peter could not follow him. Now - after the resurrection - comes the time, comes this "afterward." By shepherding the flock of Christ, Peter enters into the paschal mystery, he goes toward the cross and the resurrection. The Lord says this in these words: "....when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go" (John 21:18). In the first years of his pontificate, still young and full of energy, the Holy Father went to very ends of the earth, guided by Christ. But afterward, he increasingly entered into the communion of Christ's sufferings; increasingly he understood the truth of the words: "Someone else will fasten a belt around you." And in the very communion with the suffering Lord, tirelessly and with renewed intensity, he proclaimed the Gospel, the mystery of that love which goes to the end (John 13:1). He interpreted for us the paschal mystery as a mystery of divine mercy. In his last book, he wrote: The limit imposed upon evil "is ultimately Divine Mercy" ("Memory and Identity," p. 60-61). And reflecting on the assassination attempt, he said: "In sacrificing himself for us all, Christ gave a new meaning to suffering, opening up a new dimension, a new order: the order of love .... It is this suffering which burns and consumes evil with the flame of love and draws forth even from sin a great flowering of good." Impelled by this vision, the Pope suffered and loved in communion with Christ, and that is why the message of his suffering and his silence proved so eloquent and so fruitful.
Divine Mercy: the Holy Father found the purest reflection of God's mercy in the Mother of God. He who at an early age had lost his own mother, loved his divine mother all the more. He heard the words of the crucified Lord as addressed personally to him: "Behold your Mother." And so he did as the beloved disciple did: he took her into his own home" (John 19:27).
Totus tuus - and from the mother he learned to conform himself to Christ.
None of us can ever forget how in that last Easter Sunday of his life, the Holy Father, marked by suffering, came once more to the window of the Apostolic Palace and one last time gave his blessing urbi et orbi. We can be sure that our beloved pope is standing today at the window of the Father's house, that he sees us and blesses us. Yes, bless us, Holy Father. We entrust your dear soul to the Mother of God, your Mother, who guided you each day and who will guide you now to the eternal glory of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
On Tuesday I noted that victory in the war against terrorism will require theological defeat of Islamist belief, Wahhabism for example, and that this will only happen when Muslims committed to moderate forms of Islam begin to engage Islamists on the intellectual battlefield. The assistance of moderate Muslims in preparing the recent Freedom House report on Wahhabist hatred is one example of such engagement. Another example, even more hopeful, comes from Yemen where an Islamic judge has successfully debated al Qaeda prisoners over Koranic support for violence in a high stakes contest that results either in his undertaking jihad, or the prisoners renouncing violence. Worth reading.
Source: Armies of Liberation
Oil is Saudi Arabia’s number one export, but the global impact of Saudi oil is eclipsed by the Kingdom’s other export, Wahhabist Islam, especially when the standard for measurement is fuel provided for terrorism.
Saudi Arabia has walked a fine line since the Islamist attack on America in September of 2001. It has courted public opinion, maintaining that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. In so doing, it has sought to persuade that bin Laden represents something other than the Islam of the Kingdom. But while oft stressing that bin Laden is banished from the Kingdom, apologists for Saudi Arabia do not take time to explain that his banishment has less to do with his beliefs, which are rooted in Wahhabism, than his willingness to pronounce hypocritical the practices of the ruling House of Saud- and the resulting destabilization of the monarchy. In fact, the distinction between Wahhabist ideology and the Islam of al Qaeda amounts to little more than the difference between loading a weapon and handing it to one who will use it for nefarious ends, and actually using the weapon to commit mass murder.
The extent of Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahhabism becomes apparent in reading a recent report from Freedom House (referenced in Opinion Journal yesterday). Titled Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques, the report documents in great detail the hatred, paranoia, ignorance, and outright lies that fill publications- including school textbooks- printed with the approval of the Saudi government and distributed in mosques, schools, and Islamic cultural centers throughout America.
On Other Religions
“[I]t is basic Islam to believe that everyone who does not embrace Islam is an unbeliever, and must be called an unbeliever, and that they are enemies to Allah, his Prophet and believers.”
On Ecumenism
“… [It] erases the differences between Islam and disbelief, between truth and falsehood, good and bad, and it breaks the wall of resentment between Muslims and the unbelievers, so that there is not loyalty and enmity, no more jihad and fighting to raise Allah’s word on earth.”
On Israel
“[T]hose coming from the United States tell us that the conviction of some Americans, who are from the educated class, would make a person feel sorry for them. They believe that Israel is a democratic and civilized country, and that it wants peace and stability; it welcomes the Jewish refugees escaping the hell of communism… As for millions of Palestinians who were driven out by Israel, the American citizen knows nothing about them.”
“… the Muslims will not rest until they cut off this disease and purify the land of Palestine from the plague of Zionism, and until its rightful owners reclaim it… Victory comes from Allah alone.”
On Apostasy
“… if you accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran.”
On America
“Today, crime spreads in the democratic world to such an extent that it is terrifying both the newborn and the very old. Examples encompass sex crimes, homicides, theft, betrayal, entrapment, and conspiracies…! Satan and his soldiers have found a home for themselves there… and anxiety, worry, fear, terror, sickness, and death have become prevalent. Democracy is in need of someone to save it from itself.”
On Democracy
“[Democracy is] responsible for all the horrible wars… the number of wars it started in the 20th century alone is more than 130 wars with more than 120 million people dead; not counting victims of poverty, hunger and disease.”
On Women
“The enemies of Islam, or the enemies of humanity today, the unbelievers, hypocrites, and those with sick hearts, are angry because of what the Muslim woman has received by way of honor, prestige, and safety in Islam. These enemies want the woman to become a destructive tool, bait they can use, to hunt down those who have weak faith and uncontrollable desires.”
There is much more in the report, and it is worth reading to understand the link between soulcraft Saudi style, and the formation of Osama bin Laden. Do so and you will want to know why our government does not forbid Saudi Arabia from exporting its filth and depravity to America. We do not need homegrown bin Ladens.
There is good news to report; Freedom House received encouragement and support in preparing the report from American Muslims disgusted with Wahhabism and alarmed by its widespread dissemination in America. Ultimate victory over Islamism hinges on theological defeat of Wahhabism by Muslims committed to democracy and pluralism. Finally the battle begins!
The fruits of Islamism were evident in two countries in recent days. In the Netherlands on Tuesday, film-maker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in broad daylight by an Islamist of Dutch and Morrocan citizenship. In Sudan yesterday, forces controlled by the Arab Islamist government destroyed a Darfur refugee camp in yet another example of genocide. The events differ in scale and location, but are bound together by the common threads of bigotry, intolerance and persecution that are Islamism.
Theo van Gogh's most recent movie, Submission, portrayed Muslim women in violent and abusive marriages. The film was narrated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee turned Dutch polician, who survived an abusive marriage, renounced Islam, and lives under state protection from Islamist death threats. The film asserted that the theology and culture of Islam is misogynistic. For this message, Theo van Gogh was murdered.
The Darfur refugees in Sudan were attacked without warning. They may have considered themselves safe in a refugee camp with international observers on hand, but international observers are no protection from Islamism. Hundreds of refugees lost shelter and possessions to fire and rampage. They were beaten and in some cases shot because they are African and not Arabic, because they are Christian, or animist, or not Muslim enough.
Around the world, Islamists seek to impose the conditions of dhimmitude on non-Muslims. Dhimmitude does not permit questioning- van Gogh questioned and is dead. Dhimmitude requires submission- the Africans of Sudan are submitting with their lives. Islamism swallows freedom like night swallows day, and the world watches.
The singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam, was denied entry to the United States today. Islam should be best known, not for any contribution to music, but for his support of the death sentence issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie in 1989. Islam has equivocated on the subject ever since, arguing that death-for-blasphemy is a sentence that can only be issued and executed by an Islamic court in an Islamic country. Insofar as Britain is not an Islamic country, one is supposed to conclude that Islam supports a right of free speech. In fact, he is opposed to free speech as a human right or governing principle. He merely argues that Islamic law can not be enforced against Salman Rushdie outside of Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). Equivocations grounded in the classic Islamic construct are sure signs of bigotry. Dar al-Islam is meaningless without Dar al-Harb (the House of War), Islam is meaningless without the infidel, and the Islamist is meaningless without the dhimmi. One can not embrace part of the construct without embracing the whole. In the case of the singer formely known as Cat Stevens, it is not a question of whether he is a bigot, but of how far he would pursue bigotry given the chance.
Further Reading: In the Weekly Standard today, Stephen Schwarz characterized the unsavory details of Islam's opinions and affiliations since converting to Islam in 1978.
On Friday last week, Opinion Journal published an editorial by Archbishop John Meyers of the Newark Archdiocese. Meyers expanded on a recent statement from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on whether Catholic politicians who support abortion should receive the Eucharist. Ratzinger concluded that such Catholics should not present themselves for Holy Communion. His statement included a coda extending his reasoning to the question of Catholic voters who support pro-abortion politicians. Lacking "proportionate reasons" a Catholic must not support a pro-abortion politician.
Meyers proceeded to define proportionate reasoning and demonstrate that in this election no proportionate reasons exist for a Catholic to support a pro-abortion politician. He wrote: "... for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research."
Meyers described the moral imperative for opposing pro-abortion politicians: "Abortion and embryo-destructive research are... intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."
Worth reading.
An article in the New York Times today reports that journalists in the Islamic world have been candidly introspective about the massacre by Muslims of so many children in Beslan, Russia. For example: "They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people... They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people." This is a good start, but expelling bigotry and intolerance will not be accomplished until the same measure of introspection and criticism arise from the slaughter by Islamists of civilians in Israel.
In National Review yesterday, Mustafa Akyol argued that the violent detention and beheading of Western hostages by Islamists is not condoned by the Koran. Akyol wrote that, "... the kidnappings and murders we see today, like all other acts of terrorism committed against civilians, are un-Islamic cruelties. They stem from a kind of necrophilic nihilism, not from the essence of Islam." In his article, Akyol cited verses from the Koran to bolster his contention that Islam requires hospitality and safe passage for what he characterized as "prisoners of war."
Andrew McCarthy destroyed Akyol's argument in an article published today by National Review. While welcoming Akyol's condemnation of terrorist barbarity, McCarthy put the verses cited by Akyol into proper Koranic context, added several verses of his own, and provided illustrations from the life of Muhammed, to demonstrate that Islamists are not necessarily misconstruing their religion. McCarthy ended with these words: "I applaud Akyol for condemning the depravity of the militants who have savaged Johnson, Berg, il-Sun, Pearl, and others. But I don't believe he has made a compelling case for the "Islamic condemnation of the al Qaeda killings." Such a case would require taking these troubling verses and incidents head-on, and providing a cogent explanation of why they should not be interpreted as jihadists have interpreted them."
Both articles are worth reading- Akyol for an understanding of the Islamic theology wished for by many Muslims, and McCarthy for an understanding of Islamic theology in reality.
At once encouraging and discouraging, the Washington Post today reported that, “A papal emissary investigating suspected homosexuality and child pornography among student priests shut down the Austrian seminary at the center of the scandal Thursday, saying his probe had resulted in “very painful” revelations of sexual misconduct.”
In the face of what is seemingly persistent pedophilia and homosexual activity throughout the Church, it is encouraging that a papal emissary has acted with speed to close the seminary for an unspecified period of time, and has ordered students who wish to continue studying for the priesthood to undergo screening to verify suitability. Two of the thirty-six students at the seminary have left, but the content and volume of the evidence of depravity would seem to indicate involvement by many more students and of and duplicitous homosexual relationships with staff and teachers. One prays that the papal emissary will take all necessary measures to completely and finally end the depravity.
Good news aside, it is utterly discouraging to read that in a Catholic seminary, “…40,000 photos and numerous videos… some featuring child pornography” have been discovered on computers, and that other photographs have been found showing, “… students kissing and fondling each other and their older religious instructors.” It is downright devastating to read that, Kurt Krenn, the Bishop of St. Poelten refuses to resign, and that he has been ordered by the Church, “… to stop speaking to reporters after he described the photos of priests kissing and fondling as "childish pranks" and made other comments playing down the affair.”
The papal emissary may have authority to purge and cleanse a sinful seminary, but his authority does not extend to the chair of an errant bishop. In this, as in other cases of sexual deviancy that have so harmed the Church, the news will not be entirely encouraging until bishops like Krenn who have so failed their flock, make the fullest act of contrition for their failings- managerial or personal- by resigning.
National Review today published an excellent article by Donna Hughes on the effect of Islamization in Sudan. Even as the media and the Western world raise awareness of the horrific crimes committed by the Sudanese government against non-Arab citizens, nothing is done to stop the genocide. Governments and politicians who in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide vowed never again to tolerate such crimes against humanity can only be bothered to pass resolutions- toothless threats. Kofi Annan talks. The Arab world is silent. The Islamic nations are silent. America and Britain are preoccupied. The French don't care. In the meantime, innocents suffer and die, or if less lucky are enslaved by Islamic bigotry and Arab racism.
John Kerry and Teresa Heinz attended Mass in Albuquerque, New Mexico on Sunday and reportedly received the Eucharist. After determining that Michael Sheehan, the Archbishop of Santa Fe, has decided not to confront pro-abortion politicians with Eucharist sanction, Domenico Bettinelli wondered whether, "... the Kerrys are planning their journeys around the U.S. so that on Sundays they’re in dioceses where they are welcome to receive Communion. After all, they were heading to Denver later that day and they probably would not have been welcome to receive Communion there."
An interesting case that raises questions about religious liberties and religious discrimination was reported by the Miami Herald yesterday:
"A woman is suing her former employer, a telecommunications firm with Muslim workers and clients, claiming she was fired because she ate pork products in the company lunchroom. Pork is unclean, according to Islamic beliefs, and Rising Star Telecommunications CEO Kujaatele Kweli said his company has a policy against openly eating or preparing the meat. But the attorney for Lina Morales, an administrative assistant fired in March 2003, said the company admits there is no written policy against pork. And when Morales complained she was being disciplined for a policy of which she was unaware, she was fired for insubordination."
A Central Florida news station, Local 6, reported that, "Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean. She was then fired for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report." Local 6 quoted Kweli as saying, "Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can."
The practice of religion (or atheism for that matter) is a critical freedom- inseparable from freedom of conscience- and much worth protecting. The state, however, has a compelling interest in commerical workplaces free from discrimination. It is one thing for a religious organization, a church or charity for example, to create a workplace that does not contradict religious beliefs. It is altogether another thing for a commercial enterprise dominated by a religious group to impose beliefs and practices on employees of differing or no faith. In the former case, employees accept the religious mission of their employer as a fact of employment, in the latter case there is no such mission and no such consent- there is only discrimination.
Having said as much, any matter imposing secular standards over and above religious practice is not to be dismissed lightly- regardless of the religion in question. Recent court decisions in California and in other jurisdictions have held, for example, that charities of the Catholic Church must include contraception and abortion amongst health benefits offered to employees. This, despite the Church's irreconcileable moral and dogmatic opposition to the "benefits." What the court decides in one case will take hold in others.
Kweli confuses religious liberty with religious discrimination and Rising Star Telecommunications is in clear violation of employment law. Friends of the First Amendment should not rush to celebrate a likely victory, however, because the precedents established when courts impose secular norms too often impact religious liberty in future disputes.
Update: Tom at Redhunter also addressed this story today.
The New York Times today reported on efforts in Canada to allow Muslims to apply Sharia in disputes over property, inheritance, marriage and divorce. The Times is late in reporting on the establishment of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice in Canada. In “Justice Canadian Style,” responding to an April 28 article in the Washington Post addressing the same subject, I argued that Sharia is the antithesis of civil justice.
The Times report is distinguished from that of the Post by quotations that boggle the mind and reasoning that demands comment. For example, in introducing what would seem to be a Canadian multicultural ideal, the Times wrote, “The late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau dreamed of a Canada in which distinctive customs and identities could live side by side in harmony. Turning nationalism on its head, there would be no dominant Canadian identity, no melting pot, no official culture.
The Times continued, “H. Donald Forbes, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said he cannot be sure how Mr. Trudeau would have responded to the idea of Shariah tribunals, “but I think he would go along.” He added that as long as the arbitration is voluntary, Mr. Trudeau would probably have concluded that “this kind of meaningful accommodation was in the spirit of multiculturalism.””
No dominant national identity? Is this not a recipe for balkanization? While common sense does exist in parts of Canada, Daimnation is proof, one can not be faulted for wondering whether Canadian common sense is destined to be overwhelmed by a people disinclined toward self preservation.
The Times did provide evidence that not all Muslims in Canada support the option of Sharia: “…some Canadian Muslim women - who say Muslim law is already applied behind closed doors - say efforts to apply it openly… would represent a dangerous precedent.” The Times quoted Homa Arjomand, an Iranian born counselor for battered women, “Here in Canada, girls are segregated from boys at private Islamic elementary schools, then forced into arranged marriages through Shariah at the age of 13, 14 or 15 to men over twice their age. How much choice do these women have?”
The Times dismissed Arjomand’s concern by noting that, “… the Ontario government has appointed Marion Boyd, a feminist activist and former provincial cabinet member to review the 1991 arbitration law.” The Times then cited an example of coexistence between religious and secular law: “It would not be the first time laws have changed to balance religion and secular rights. A group of Canadian Jewish women pressed the federal government in 1990 to enact a law to help Jewish women seeking a religious divorce against recalcitrant husbands who under Orthodox rules have the upper hand in such cases.”
This might be encouraging if Jewish law compared to Sharia like plowshares compare to plowshares, but the accurate comparison is of plowshares to swords. Jews have history as proof of the Torah's adaptability to host cultures. Islam has no similar record. Instead, Islam and Sharia, invented to authenticate a conquest, demand ascendancy.
The Times quoted Boyd: "How do we honor two commitments, to multiculturalism and equity to the rule of law, that often seem to come into conflict? We have been struggling a bit. There really are conflicting values."
There really are conflicting values? Ms. Boyd just realized this? The Muslim women she is to protect- pressed by their culture into the arms of Sharia- should worry.
Update: Jane at Armies of Liberation also addressed this story today.
The Washington Times contacted Aluma Dankowitz of the Middle East Media Research Institute for a translation of lyrics from a song on Nour Mehana’s latest album. The Times reported yesterday that Mehana, a popular Syrian singer whose band provoked fears of group bomb making amongst passengers and crew on a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles on June 29, has a song titled, “Um El Shaheed,” or “Mother of a Martyr,” which glorifies Palestinian suicide bombing of Israeli targets:
“The song tells the story of a woman who mourned her son's death until she realized that “he died for a good cause and he should be glorified for what he did,” said Miss Dankowitz, who translated the song for The Washington Times. Mr. Mehana, widely known as the Syrian Wayne Newton, sings to the mother that her son's goals are heroic and she should be happy he is dead.
“The song opens with the depiction of a mother crying over her son. He has said goodbye to his friends and family and is not going to come back. He went with a weapon in one palm and his heart in another palm and he's not going to come back,” Miss Dankowitz said. “He went to fight to free Palestine, Golan Heights and South Lebanon.””
I am tempted to question the sort of culture that encourages such depraved lyrics, but then a single artist is not necessarily representative of a culture. Instead, I wonder aloud, given Mehana’s apparent interest in freedom and self determination, where are his songs calling for the people of Lebanon to free themselves from occupation by Syria?
The Arab News Daily concluded from the report issued by the congressional commission investigating 9/11: "Unfortunately the fact that they [Americans] have now shared in the terror that has long afflicted the rest of the world has not yet helped them understand the basic injustices on which terrorism feeds and thrives such as the atrocity of Palestine. No committee is needed to tell us who is behind the terrorism Palestinians are suffering every day."
As Armies of Liberation succinctly put it, "What a load of trash coming from the official English language newspaper of Saudi Arabia." Americans understand, commission report or not, that terrorism feeds on the doctrines of Islamism and that Saudi Arabia, the world's dominant exporter of the hateful Wahabbist strain of Islamism, is very much responsible for the rise of international Islamist terror. We also understand that most of the murderers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians.
Much more than a congressional report, however, will be necessary to end the hatred that so blinds Saudi Arabia. Nothing short of a reformation in Islam will open the eyes of the Arab world to simple facts: Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Saudi Arabia stand between Palestinians and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Islamism will not abide by a two state solution between Israel and Palestine and the Arab world cares not a whit for the Palestinians as human beings, finding them much more useful as an excuse for anti-Semitism.
It is not often that Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or share a stage- when they do one is well advised to pay attention. Both are first rate minds with an incredible understanding of the history and practice of Islam. While reading Aaron's Rantblog, I came across a FrontPage Symposium that featured Spencer, Ye'or and Kahleel Mohammed (also a bright fellow) on the subject of "The Koran and Anti-Semitism". The transcript of the Symposium is lengthy but extremely rewarding. Take the time and read it for insight into the problems that plague Islam today.
The New York Times today published an article on the security threat posed by Western converts to Islam. The Times wrote that converts are not easily identifiable by immigration and customs officials, a fact likely to be leveraged by Islamists planning terrorist attacks: "Converts will be used for striking more and more by jihadist circles," said Jean-Luc Marret, a terrorism expert at the Strategic Research Foundation, in Paris. "They have been used in the past for proselytism, logistics or support, and they are operationally useful now."
The Times reported that many new converts are social losers who first encounter Islam in prison. In France for example, the prison population is more than fifty percent Muslim. The Times wrote, “Antoine Sfeir, a French scholar who is writing a book on the trend, said a small number of converts, many of them disaffected and often troubled young people, saw the current wave of Islamic terrorism as "a kind of combat against the rich, powerful, by the poor men of the planet."
The Times notes that, “Only a small fraction of Western Islamic converts sympathize with terrorism, and even fewer become engaged in terrorist activity.” While true, the small numbers who do sympathize with Islamism are cause for concern in open Western societies struggling with issues of profiling and security.
On July 6, Arab News Daily published an article by Linda Heard titled, "America's Growing Culture of Hate." I analyzed her article in a July 7 posting titled, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism." I posted Linda's response to my analysis yesterday as "Linda Heard Responds." Following is my response to her response.
Linda-
Firstly, thank you for your email and apologies for my delayed response.
It did not escape my attention that your article was written about events in the United States. Most of my response dealt with the events you described as contributing to a culture of hatred toward Muslims in the United States. I tried to distinguish between what could reasonably be considered hateful behavior (e.g., vandalism and threatened or actual violence), and what is rightly characterized as the exercise of free speech (e.g., Doctor Laura’s radio program). Your response provides a laundry list of anecdotal evidence for what you conclude is the beginnings of a “mass paranoia” toward Islam. I beg to differ. The United States is coming to grips with a serious national security threat that is attributable to Islam and Islamism. While the threat predates 9/11, it was brought into sharp focus by that day’s mass murder of thousands of innocents by 19 Muslim men. Need I remind you that while so many in New York and Washington suffered from the 9/11 attacks, many Muslims celebrated the carnage and death by dancing in streets round the world. Americans did not respond to 9/11 with violent rampages against Muslims living in the United States. There was an increase in threats and vandalism but appreciably little actual violence (I think there were two actual deaths- one of them a Sikh- in a country of 250 million people). Indeed, one can document vastly more violence and murders perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in countries like Pakistan, Sudan, and Indonesia in the twelve months following 9/11 than were perpetrated by Americans against Muslims in the United States. Are you planning to publish in Arab News Daily an article about the Islamic culture of hatred for Christians and Jews? I won’t hold my breath.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Americans have gone to war against terrorism and have taken steps to secure our borders against terrorist infiltration and to identify internal terrorists. These security imperatives have resulted in occasional and regrettable errors- they have also resulted in the successful preemption of terrorist strikes. The successes by far outweigh the inconvenience to those wrongfully questioned. Before you respond that I have the luxury of not being one of the inconvenienced few, let me clearly state that every American is inconvenienced as a result of Islamist terror. I used to be able to leave my home twenty-five minutes in advance of a shuttle flight- without having purchased a ticket- and in that time drive to the airport, park, purchase a ticket, and board the flight without having to hurry. This scenario is but a fantasy in the aftermath of 9/11 when passing through security can take an hour. Whenever I find myself waiting in an airport security line, I feel angry about the imposition and I think about the underlying reason why the line exists in the first place. It isn’t because we have a problem with grandmothers from Minnesota sneaking shoe bombs onto airplanes; it isn’t because Buddhist monks have been hiding box cutters under their saffron robes; it isn’t because Christians have been attempting to fly airplanes into the Grand Mosque in Mecca; and it isn’t because Zoroastrians have been preaching bigotry and world domination in Friday sermons. It is because nineteen Muslims, with support from a dispersed network of Islamist organizations (themselves financed by Muslims around the world), murdered thousands of innocents in the clearest possible declaration of war against Western civilization.
I conceded above that wrongful questioning and detention is regrettable in America. It is important to note that wrongful questioning and detainment are standard operating procedures in the world’s Islamic republics. Having said as much, consider just a few of the reasons why Americans are understandably suspicious about Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace.
- Have you heard of Daniel Pearl, the American news reporter who was murdered by Muslims in Pakistan?
- Have you heard of Paul Johnson, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
- Have you heard of Fabrizio Quattrocci, the Italian contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Kim Sun Il, the South Korean contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Keith Maupin, the American Army specialist who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Nick Berg, the American contractor who was murdered by Muslims in Iraq?
- Have you heard of Richard Reid, the British Muslim who attempted to blow up a passenger airplane headed for America?
- Have you heard of Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj, the Muslims who murdered six people in the first World Trade Center attack?
- Have you heard of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric who preached hatred at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, masterminded the first World Trade Center attack and the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and planned to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak?
I could add much to this list, but a story that came to my attention today will serve as a much better illustration of the problem the United States faces. The Womens Wall Street Journal recently posted a horrifying article by Annie Jacobsen titled, “Terror in the Skies, Again?” It recounted events that occurred during a flight between Detroit and Los Angeles where 14 Middle Eastern men seem to have conducted an in-flight practice session in collective bomb making. Passengers on the flight were terrified by the obviously suspicious conduct of the Middle Eastern men but all felt uncomfortable confronting them because they did not want to be considered racist. That is the true state of racial consciousness in America- better to die when the plane explodes than confront terrorists in the act of making a bomb. What is more, the article addressed the legal measure taken by the United States specifically to preclude security officials, including air marshals, from treating Middle Eastern and Asian people differently regardless of circumstance:
In researching her article, Jacobsen found a February 8, 2004 report in The Observer that the “...[United States] Transportation Security Administration issued an urgent memo detailing new threats to aviation and warning that terrorists in teams of five might be planning suicide missions to hijack commercial airliners, possibly using common items...such as cameras, modified as weapons.” She continued, “...Components of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or personal carry-on items... and assembled on board. In many cases of suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's forward lavatory.” Jacobsen asked the question, “Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?” Her answer: “Apparently not. Due to [American] rules against discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that ...it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.” Jacobsen concluded, “So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12 because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota.”
America and the Western world bend over backwards to avoid bigotry and intolerance. Don’t believe it? How many people immigrate (a different proposition from expatriation, which is temporary) from the West to Islamic republics? Basically none, I think. Care to guess why? The answer has much to do with the institutionalization of bigotry and intolerance in most Islamic republics. We aren’t perfect -- no one is -- but living as a minority in America and the Western world is vastly better than living as a minority in any Islamic republic and most of the non-Western world. Since 9/11, the American people have behaved splendidly toward Muslims living in the United States—true, there have been random acts of violence and discrimination, but we work to bring the perpetrators to justice under existing laws. So conscious are we of the taint of racism that we have created policies that jeopardize the lives of our people by giving the benefit of the doubt to the obviously suspicious activities of Middle Eastern men as noted in Jacobsen’s story above. I am not enthusiastic about racial profiling. I have Muslim friends and colleagues who do not deserve to be singled out on the basis of race or religion. I suspect, however, that the only way to maximize the safety of all Americans is through the systematic use of profiling. You will no doubt call this hatred; I call it prudence.
Finally, I must address your ludicrous contention that “Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions.” The extreme religious tolerance to which you allude no doubt explains why Saudi Arabia forbids Christians and Jews from building churches and synagogues, arrests Christians and Jews who display their faith in public, and executes Muslims who convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism. That same extreme tolerance must be at work when Muslims in Sudan capture and sell Christians and animists into slavery. Of course, extreme tolerance can be credited when Muslims in Egypt persecute the Coptic Christian minority in their midst. I would be remiss if I failed to credit extreme tolerance as the driving force behind the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in East Timor. You will probably also agree that extreme religious tolerance on the part of the Islamic world is the very reason why the population of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries has dwindled to nearly nothing. Yes, it is the extreme religious tolerance enshrined in Islam that leads Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims to run like hell in the face of an Islamic majority.
In fact, Islam is not tolerant of Christians, Jews or any other non-Muslim religion in theological or historical terms. The Koran does label Jews, Christians and Muslims as “peoples of the book” but this has no more meaning than if they were labeled “peoples of the planet Tattooine.” In practice, today and throughout Islamic history, Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims have been ill-treated in Muslim lands. Surahs in the Koran are designated by Islamic scholars to be either Mecca surahs or Medina surahs. Those in the former category are characterized by a more tolerant tone toward Christians and Jews while surrahs in the latter category are remarkable for there intolerance of Christians and Jews. This internal contradiction is resolved by “Allah” through the doctrine of abrogation, which holds that when a contradiction exists between surahs, the later surah abrogates the earlier surah. In practice and in fact, this means that niceties such as labeling Jews, Christians and Muslims “people of the book” are abrogated by verses such as:
- “In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (Women – 4:101)
- “O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” (Women – 4:144)
- “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is one of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.” (The Table Spread – 5:51)
- “O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.” (Spoils of War – 8:65)
- “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah not the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until the pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (Repentance – 9:29)
- “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s-end.” (Repentance – 9:73)
- “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto him).” (Repentance – 9:123)
These verses would be dismissible as mere theological footnotes had they not served as signposts for Islamic behavior toward non-Muslims throughout Islamic history. Islamic theology is the driving force in Islamic history, and as a result Islamic history is filled with violent jihadist conquest and sword-point conversion of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. The conquests of what are today Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Portugal and Spain, amongst others, were motivated by Islam and featured unrestrained and cruel violence toward Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim conquered peoples. Once conquered, non-Muslims were subjected to dhimmitude, a contract of servitude and third-class subsistence that allowed them perilous survival solely at the whim of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were not allowed to build new churches or synagogues, or repair existing ones. Dhimmi were not allowed to worship in public. Dhimmi were required to pay a tax for the privilege of retaining their faith- in India after the Mughal invasion this tax approximated one year’s earnings for the average man. Dhimmi were required to dress distinctively so as to be immediately distinguishable from Muslims—shades of later Nazi treatment of the Jews. Dhimmi were not allowed to construct buildings that were higher than those of their Muslim neighbors. Dhimmi were in all ways treated as inferior to Muslims under the law-- a fact often exploited by Muslims to steal dhimmi property. In other words, dhimmitude was, and is, a purposeful and practical means of destroying non-Muslim populations through attrition. Dhimmitude is decidedly not tolerant. As with the Koranic verses cited above, the contract of the dhimmi would be dismissable as a historical footnote were not elements of dhimmitude evident in Islamic societies around the world. Worse, the Islamist rhetoric that today emanates from so-called extremist movements demands the literal enforcement of dhimmitude against non-Muslim peoples. Their rhetoric is supported financially and otherwise by Islamic governments in countries including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan and by theological movements, chief among them Wahhabism.
I have Muslim friends who are dear to me. I find in them wonderful tolerance, humor and an openness to inquiry and discussion. They characterize what is best about human beings and what is-- without a doubt --the norm for Muslim people. One might describe them as defying the doctrine of abrogation because they are animated by the spirit of the Mecca surahs more than the Medina surrahs. Having said as much, when one scrutinizes the literal theology and the actual history of Islam, one stretches to explain it in the context of the tolerance that characterizes my Muslim friends and Muslims the world over. In fact, the actions and the rhetoric of Islamists and far too many Islamic governments are closer to a holistic reading of Islam, with reverence for the doctrine of abrogation and the Medina surahs, which is to say, not at all tolerant of non-Muslims.
You stated that the America you are reading about in the media is not the America you once knew and loved. Is the Islam of history and of recent headlines the Islam you presumably know and love today?
*Koranic quotations are taken from a translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, published in first edition by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. in 2000.
Linda Heard was kind enough to respond to my posting, "Pot Meet Kettle, The Hypocrisy of Islamic Journalism," which analyzed her article, "America's Growing Culture of Hate" published in Arab News Daily. I will post a response to her response tomorrow.
From: Linda Heard
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:45 AM
To: Publius
It may have escaped your notice but the article I wrote was specifically confined to trends in the "democratic" and "free" U.S. which wants to share its "values" with the rest of the planet, so why would I include the Arab world?
You see the Arab nations don't purport to be other than they are, but I must point out, in any case, that Islam is extremely tolerant of other religions. Indeed, it considers the believers in Islam, Judaism and Christianity as all 'peoples of the book'.
There are so many well-documented stories coming out of the U.S. right now that to many of us on the outside this is beginning to sound like mass paranoia.
Have you heard about the poor Nepalese man, recently written about in the NYT, who was jailed for three months for just taking photographs of a well-known landmark building, which just happened to house an FBI office? He was on his way back home and merely wanted snaps to show his family in Nepal. When the FBI man who initially arrested ran checks, he realised his mistake but it was too late. The man was already in the unforgiving and unrelenting system. Still the Nepali was deported.
Have you heard about the four Indian Catholic nuns with valid green cards who were recently offloaded off an aeroplane by the captain ( just because of the colour of their skin ) who later made up a story that they had been asking awkward questions of the crew when they hadn't even communicated with the crew?
Have you heard about the American convert, mother of three children formerly married to an Iranian, who suddenly found her house running with FBI and IRS. They held a gun to the head of her 10 year old son, ransacked the place and took away her Qu'ran and prayer books, saying they were investigating her taxes!!!
And just recently I read a story in the Guardian about a British journalist married to an American who travelled to the U.S. as she had done tens of times before. This time was different however. All of a sudden when she was asked what she did for a living and honestly answered 'journalist' she was taken off, put in a cell, and left without food. She asked for a cup of tea and was told this wasn't allowed. The people she encountered during this detention were rude and threatening. Many hours later she was deported back to England. Her crime? Not obtaining a media visa, which had never been required of her before.
Did you hear about the Syrian-born Canadian, who when transiting through the U.S., was interrogated and sent to Syria where he was persona non grata and ended up in jail?
I don't know what is going on in your country, but whatever it is, it doesn't sound like the America I once knew and loved. Sorry!
Linda Heard
The Guardian yesterday published a fawning profile of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, describing him as, "a complex, international figure, whose religious pronouncements address the dilemmas confronting Muslims in the modern world." Al-Qaradawi is in the headlines because, while in London to convene the European Council for Fatwa and Research and announce the establishment of the International Council of Clerics, he is being monitored by the government for evidence of hate speech.
While the Guardian frantically spins words to portray al-Qaradawi as a nuanced Islamic jurist rather than a slick Islamist, Armies of Liberation, Daimnation, Mick Hartley, Solomnia, and MEMRI give a decidedly more accurate picture of his global activities in the Islamist war against tolerance and plurality.
The Arab News Daily yesterday published an article by Linda Heard that twists all reality to argue that a culture of hatred against Muslims is growing in America. Heard's rant seems to be based entirely on press releases issued by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- a poor choice of sourcing. It is well documented, by Anti-CAIR for example, that CAIR, originally funded by Saudi Arabia for the purpose of spreading Islam in America, has Islamist sympathies and a ferocious intolerance for those who question the supposedly peaceful nature of Islam.
In the opening paragraph of her article, Heard mentions "radio talk show host Jay Severin who... claimed that Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries, adding “I’ve got an idea. Let’s all kill Muslims”. Heard writes, "Amazingly Severin is still in his job, although he has been forced to apologize on air." I haven't the faintest idea who Jay Severin is, but the latter quotation, "Let's all kill Muslims" is intolerable regardless of context. But what of his first assertion that, "Muslims want to take over America even if it takes centuries?" Heard's source for the quotations is CAIR, which includes Omar Ahmad and Ibraham Hooper amongst its founders and executive members. Ahmad once said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Hooper has been quoted as saying, "" I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." Severin would seem to be right- these are hardly the sentiments of people committed to integrating into American pluralistic society.
Given the appalling record of human rights violations in every Islamic republic round the world, Americans are well advised to fight the import of Islamism- not through violent reprisals against Muslims in the United States but through intellectual clarity. Most Muslims in America are committed to pluralism and tolerance. Those Muslims who would impose Islamic law on America, however, are a threat to our freedom. We can see examples of the intolerance they favor in the violent bigotry and racism that permeates society in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Sudan. Agents of Islamism, CAIR included, should be challenged and discredited in their every attempt to spread their flavor of Islam. This is free speech, not hatred.
While it is legitimate to question the content and tone of public discourse about Islam in America, foreign based news organizations that do so should pay equal or greater attention to the content and tone of discourse regarding non-Islamic faiths in their own countries- more often than not the need for such introspection can not be underestimated. Islam and Islamic republics have little or no tolerance for public questioning and often are purposeful exporters of the intolerance practiced within their borders. This may explain why Heard is carrying water for CAIR and Saudi Arabia. America is a country where Muslims can build mosques, worship, and evangelize with the same legal and social protections enjoyed by all members of society. Contrast this with condition of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia where, for example, Christians may not build churches or worship in public, and converts from Islam to Christianity are punished as apostates under the law.
Americans cherish and make good use of the First Amendment right to speak freely. It is unfortunate and inevitable that random acts of hatred occur in diverse societies. Heard mentions a few such acts including threats and vandalism (there are lots more) but she does not mention that when they occur in America we apply the law against the perpetrators. Most of her article, however, attempts to label as hatred the free exercise of speech by assorted talk radio hosts and the Islamic scholar, Daniel Pipes, whom CAIR obsessively attacks and attempts to discredit. The free exercise of speech is not to be confused with hatred- questioning Islamic history and practice is not hateful.
Toward the end of her article, Heard mindlessly repeats the assertion that Islam is a peaceful religion. She would make better use of her time by exploring the basis for the perception in America and the West that Islam is not a religion of peace. She does not mention the fact that Islam has bloody borders. She does not mention the fact that Islam has at its theological root intolerance for non-Muslims. She does not mention the fact that countries where Islamic law prevails have, with few historical exceptions, always codified intolerance. She does not mention the undiluted hatred that spews from minbars throughout the Islamic world during Friday sermons. Finally, she ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia, the country from which the Arab News Daily originated, has institutionalized hatred as both social contract and compulsory religion, and is the world’s largest exporter of bigotry and intolerance.
If proof were needed that the Church has not moved beyond the pedophilia scandal, the Washington Post reported today that the Archdiocese of Portland will file for bankruptcy because it is overwhelmed by the financial costs of settling sexual abuse claims. The Post cited pending lawsuits involving Maurice Grammond, a priest who is acused of molesting more than 50 boys. Two lawsuits in particular involve claims for more than $160 million.
The Church- my Church- must make the sincere act of contrition that it teaches all Catholics to make. The Archdiocese of Boston has set the example for penance by replacing it's Bishop, selling property and closing parishes to raise funds to compensate those who have been abused by priests like Grammond. True contrition is not without pain, but without contrition there can be no healing.
The Post quoted Grammond from a deposition taken before his death in 2002: "I'd say these children abused me. They'd dive in my lap to get sexual excitement." That such a man was a priest for long enough to molest 50 boys is inexcusable. Worse, he was not alone in his depravity and his Archdiocese was not alone in failing to prevent such systematic abuse. What price should we not bear to demonstrate faith in Christ when we have so failed our children?
The government of Israel is proceeding with planning and construction of a security wall to prevent Palestinian islamists from entering Israel and detonating explosives amidst Israeli citizens. The wall will eventually stretch some 425 miles separating Palestinians from Israel along an imposed boundary. The imposition of such a boundary, absent a peaceful settlement of the land dispute between Israelis and Palestinians is unfortunate but necessary. Israel has made good faith efforts in the past several years to peacefully resolve the dispute and establish a legitimate Palestinian state. The Palestinians, or more specifically Palestinian leadership, have not responded in kind. Ehud Barach in a deal brokered by former President Bill Clinton offered Yasir Arafat approximately 98% of the land demanded by Palestinians- an offer that was met by Arafat’s walking away from the negotiating table and initiating the second intifada- a wave of bloody violence by Palestinian islamists against Israelis. The highly effective result of the second intifada and Arafat’s clear demonstration of bad faith in negotiations is the security wall.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Israel’s High Court acted on petitions filed by Palestinian villages and, “ordered that changes be made to the route of [the wall] to minimize hardships to Palestinians living in the area.” The Post today reported that Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister, was, “prepared to move [the wall] closer to Israel where possible to avoid trapping Palestinians in fenced-in enclaves.” This is how the law should work, and this is why Israel occupies the moral high ground in the dispute. The elected Israeli government, with legal institutions that treat Palestinians and Israelis as equal under the law in such matters contrasts dramatically with the Arafat’s self-imposed government and legal vigilantism. For example, the New York Times today reported that a Palestinian accused of collaborating with Israel was machine gunned to death by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which is part of Arafat's Fatah movement. The Times wrote:
“Militants had hustled Daraghmeh into the square before assembled townsfolk and told them: “This man, as you know ... gave information to Israel on the whereabouts of our fighters. What should his sentence be?”
“Execution!” roared the crowd.
The militants gunned down Daraghmeh seconds later and residents both young and old cheered and chanted around his prone, bloodied corpse.”
Sadly, the Palestinian people suffer more from their self-proclaimed leaders and the disingenuous Arabs and Muslims who “support” them than from Israel. Were Arafat the least inclined to lead his people to statehood, the issue would be resolved and Palestinians would today control their destiny. Instead, Arafat continues to loot the Palestinian people, padding his net worth estimated in hundreds of millions of dollars, and islamist organizations and the Muslim world use them as an excuse to continue the violent bigotry and racism that permeates Islam and is rooted firmly in traditions stretching back through time and empire to Muhammad himself.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Human Events today published an editorial by David Freddoso that does a fine job explaining that actions taken by the Church out of moral necessity are not actions taken for political purposes, even if the actions may have consequences for politicians.
On the question of withholding sacraments from politicians who support abortion, Freddoso writes, "This is how religious freedom is supposed to work in the United States. You can do whatever you want -- just don't expect Church leaders to let your poor public example stand without an equally public contradiction. After all, they owe us that moral clarity."
Freddoso's article is worth reading.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that 48 Democrat congressmen have written to Cardinal McCarrick, head of a U.S. bishop's task force charged with determining how the Church should respond to Catholic politicians who consistently take public positions in opposition to Church doctrine. The letter warns McCarrick that a decision to withhold the Eucharist from politicians who support abortion and other clearly anti-Catholic public policies could turn opinion against the Church.
The Post quotes the letter: "For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope... While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."
The Democrat signatories to the letter are suggesting that bishops who faithfully teach the Magesterium of the Church are responsible for any backlash against the Church. Blending in with secular culture by betraying the Church and her teachings on the sanctity of human life is no way to overcome "latent anti-Catholic prejudice." If ignoring and diluting doctrine is the Democrat solution for anti-Catholic bigotry, then give me bigotry.
Domenico Bettinelli has an interesting interpretation. He considers the offer of a meeting with McCarrick to be a sign that the Church will blink: “What the letter did was provide a convenient escape hatch for McCarrick and his task force where they can say that they have no choice but to recommend that such sanctions not be used, lest Catholics be forcibly ejected from public life by the shadowy hordes of anti-Catholics bigots waiting in the wings."
Bettinelli continues, “Most of the anti-Catholic bigots I know of are listed on the Democrat Party’s web site as affiliated groups. Maybe the Catholic Democrats should be re-thinking their party affiliation if that’s what they’re really afraid of.”
I have not yet read Irshad Manji's book, "The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith." I first encountered the book in a used bookstore that I favor with much of my spare time, and while I was intrigued by the cover notes, I passed on the purchase because I already faced a backlog of books on the subject of Islam. I have since read a number of reviews about Manji’s book and I very much regret my uncharacteristic restraint on that distant day.
I mention Manji because Opinion Journal today published an editorial in which she discusses, with candor uncharacteristic of Islam, the violence and intolerance that are written into the Koran and Hadiths. Manji succeeds in explaining some of the theology that drives Islamists- Osama bin Laden for example. She also suggests that an Islamic “reformation” is possible through theological constructs. On the latter point, I withhold judgment. While I am not persuaded by the argument framed in Manji’s editorial, I recognize the limitations of the editorial medium. Perhaps in the space of a book her argument is more compelling.
In the meantime, my reading of the Koran and parts of the Hadiths leaves me convinced that they say little to encourage a theology that is not literalist. My skepticism results from the following logic: the Koran repeatedly claims literal divine authorship and exalts the life of Muhammad (an exaltation that holds Islamic tradition together); and Islamic tradition describes Muhammad’s life in terms that are objectively violent, intolerant and opportunistic. How then can a Muslim question the life and deeds of Muhammad without breaking with what he is taught to consider the literal words of God?
I have not found a satisfactory answer to this problem, but I will read Manji with the hope that she can provide one.
From National Review, an article by Erick Stakelbeck putting American abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib into Islamic and Islamist perspective. Stakelbeck provides a shameful litany of the sort of atrocities committed by Muslims of various stripes against prisoners and military and political opponents. While loudly condemning America for abusive practices, the Islamic world looks the other way, or even cheers, when Muslims commit far worse atrocities against non-Muslims. For example, Palestinians danced in the streets in celebration of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. This is all the more reason for America to investigate and understand what happened in Abu Ghraib, and to punish those responsible for any abuse. We must show the high road to a lost people.
National Review today published an article by Paul Marshall analyzing recent and ongoing elections in Indonesia. Marshall notes that while a majority of voters favor Indonesia's brand of tolerant Islam, they are fragmented into competing parties, which concentrates political power in the hands of political parties inclined toward Islamism, or the sort of intolerant Islam exported by so many Middle Eastern countries. Worth reading.
Opinion Journal published this morning a brief and uplifting editorial on faith, the priesthood and the Church. A positive account of the impact and inspiration of one man's life and death in service to God is welcome at a time when the priesthood is routinely disparaged and the holy order of the Church is under siege by secularism and ignorance.
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's campaign to convince the world that Islam is, "a religion of peace and moderation," was dealt a bit of a setback this morning when Reuters reported that Abdul-Satar al-Bahadli, a cleric and follower of the Iraqi Islamist , Moqtada al-Sadr, preached a sermon in Basra offering a reward of roughly U.S. $170 for the capture of a female British soldier. al-Bahadli told his audience that if captured, the female British soldier "should be handed to the office of Sadr, the martyr, and she will be treated as a concubine."
It must be frustrating to Abdullah and other Muslims who seek to export their religion to an unsuspecting West, when an obscure cleric in Iraq makes international headlines with a pronouncement that is both barbaric and completely in accordance with the Koran and the Hadiths. Abdullah's loss is our gain, as every slip-up feeds the West's awareness of the true nature of Islam.
The New York Times today reported that dissolution and separation had been suggested by conservatives at the quadrennial General Conference of the United Methodist Church in answer to persistent disputes with liberals over questions of homosexuality and scriptural inerrancy. The Times report is worth mentioning only because it is so poorly written and so clearly demonstrates the Time’s willingness to play with words and logic to advance it’s post-Christian and politically correct agenda.
The Times wrote that, “Although a schism is far from imminent or sure, the proposal is an indication that Methodist conservatives intend to use the gay issue as a wedge to precipitate a fracture, just as they have in the Episcopal Church USA, in which some churches are now forming a rival network.” I am sure that the Times does not believe that conservative Methodists are responsible for problems in the Episcopal Church- one wonders what the writer was drinking when he wrote this sentence, and the editor when he overlooked it.
Setting aside questions of grammatical incompetence, the Times’ agenda shines forth in the next sentence, “In nearly every mainline Protestant denomination, from the Presbyterian Church USA to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, conservatives are mounting increasingly organized challenges to churches long associated with theological diversity and liberal causes.” If we are to believe the Times, theological liberals who suggest that scripture is not inerrant, and that homosexuality is compatible with scripture, are guardians of denominational tradition, while conservatives are on the attack against those same hallowed traditions.
This argument is nonsensical. Protestant tradition and doctrine has hundreds of years of history behind it, and save for the past thirty years, all of that tradition aligns with the conservative arguments on scripture and homosexuality. Late in the article the Times betrays its sophism in writing, “In multiple votes on gay issues at the conference here, the nearly 1,000 delegates have consistently opposed changing their church doctrine to include acceptance of gay sex or openly gay ministers.” Losers in a voting process represent the minority, not the majority. The doctrine of any religious body is held in the majority, not the minority. Liberals are challenging long standing church traditions, not conservatives.
The self-righteousness of the politically correct left is to be found in the logic of the Times, and in the behavior those responsible for driving the Methodist Church toward schism. The Times wrote, “After losing several critical votes this week, hundreds of gay clergy members and lay people and their supporters paraded through the convention hall today singing the Methodist hymn, "We are the church."” They are not the church, but the will be a church, separate and distinct from the Methodist Church, if they succeed in abandoning scripture and tradition.
National Review today published an excellent discussion by Carl Olson of the Left Behind novels and The DaVinci Code, books that rank among the worst I have read in recent memory.
I read the first of the Left Behind novels with some interest, I struggled through the second- the third was a trial of pain. I did not, and will not read the rest of the series. Improbable as it may seem, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are actually worse at writing fiction than they are at doing theology. Dan Brown is a slightly better writer than LaHaye and Jenkins (though that is not saying very much) but in The DaVinci Code he betrays a grasp of theology worse than that of LaHaye and Jenkins. One wonders why the books are popular when they combine so much theological error with one-dimensional characters, contrived plotting, and boring dialogue. Olson's attempt to answer this question is worth reading- unlike the books he discusses.
The New York Times this morning reported on radicalization amongst young Muslims living in Europe. The Times and its many sources sought to reinforce the oft-repeated fallacy that Islamism derives from Western policy. In fact, Islamism derives from core teachings in the Koran and the Hadiths. While Islamism may not necessarily be the inevitable result of Islamic teaching and practice, its popularity is fueled by the total failure of Muslim countries to provide their citizens with human rights and basic standards of living.
Hatred and anti-Semitism, which are also derived from core Islamic teachings, are documented by the Times, as in the dismissal by Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad of members of Parliament who seek his deportation, "There is no case against me but they are Jewish, they have been calling for that for years." He added, “Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity.”
The Times article describes an Islamist movement stretching across Europe, using Western free speech and immigration protections as cover behind which to overthrow European pluralism and democracy. The Times article builds on an April 20 report in the Evening Standard about Islamism amongst young Muslims in London. A quote at the beginning of that article sets the tone, "As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq… "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."
Do the militants represent the mainstream, and are they accepted in mosques? The Standard article quotes Muhammad Sulaiman, president of a large mosque, who “…insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times," he says brusquely.
But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."
Pat Tillman declined a multi-million dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League to join the United States Army after the Islamist attack on September 11. In doing so, he shunned publicity, insisting that he was no more special than any other man in uniform. He was right; every soldier fighting in the war against terrorism is a hero.
Tillman was killed in combat in Afghanistan today, fighting for things about which he cared deeply enough- country, duty, honor and freedom- to sacrifice the immense rewards he had reaped and was poised to continue reaping at the pinnacle of secular American society. He recognized that his achievements were possible because America secures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of her citizens, and that this patrimony requires defending if it is to be passed on to future generations.
Fabrizio Quattrocchi went to Iraq as a contractor to an American security company to earn sufficient money to marry and set up home in Italy. Earlier this month he was kidnapped, forced to dig his own grave, and then shot in the neck by Islamists. Quattrochi too is a hero. To the last moment, he defied his murderers who filmed what they hoped would be a means of humiliating and intimidating the Italian people. Instead, Quattrocchi tried to remove the hood placed over his head, and his last words were audible on the videotape, “Now I'll show you how an Italian dies.”
Al Jazeera, the Islamist mouthpiece that masquerades as a news station, refused to broadcast the kidnappers tape of the execution claiming that it was too bloody. In fact, al Jazeera does not back away from airing any footage that advances the Islamist cause. In this case, al Jazeera chose not to broadcast a Western hero defying Islamist bigots even unto death because doing shows Islamism as the bullies game that it is.
While liberals in the Western world oppose the war against terrorism in terms that sound moral, but really boil down to a concern for material convenience, Tillman and Quattrocchi demonstrated that life becomes moral when we struggle for freedom. A prosperous life is good, but not at the price of enslavement. A peaceful death is good, but not at the price of humiliation. There are times when good men are confronted by evil and the only moral response is action and defiance. We live in such times- Islamism is an objective evil. Tillman and Quattrocchi are heroes because in living and dying, they answered the moral call for action and defiance. In living and in dying the made the world a better place, they shall not be forgotten.
MEMRI yesterday published an interesting collection of Middle East reviews on Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of Christ."
The New York Times this morning reported that three car bombs were detonated in front of police stations in Basra, Iraq killing 68 people including 23 children. One could be forgiven for concluding that Islam has a problem with violence, were it not for the reassuring words of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah who yesterday, according to the Arab News Daily, pronounced Islam, “a religion of peace and moderation.”
In his inaugural address to an international conference on Islam and terrorism held in Riyadh, Abdullah said, “Islam condemns all forms of terrorism and we must strive to correct wrong perceptions about our religion.” If the Basra attacks didn’t leave Abdullah second-guessing his use of the words “peace” and “moderation” in a sentence with the word “Islam”, an attack in Riyadh today may have done the trick. According to the Times, the headquarters of Saudi Arabia’s police force in Riyadh was shredded by two car bombs this morning, killing an estimated 10 people.
If Abdullah is sincere about wanting to correct perceptions about Islam, he might start with the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. If he truly believed that Islam is a religion of peace, he would seek to end the continual exhortations to hatred and violence, which pass for Friday sermons in so many mosques. If he truly believes that Islam is a religion of moderation, he would seek an end to the imposition on Saudi citizens of Wahibism, the most extreme and intolerant form of Islam.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates and publishes Friday sermons from around the Islamic world. In one example, Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris, an employee of the Palestini