The Unreported Merkel

Via-The American Spectator

By Samuel Gregg

It's not often senior European political leaders make politically-incorrect statements, but Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently made a habit of it. The subject has been the touchy question of Muslim immigration and the challenges it poses for European identity. Not only has Merkel upset the European political class (especially the Left and the Greens) by saying what everyone knows -- that multiculturalism has "utterly failed" -- but she also argued that the issue was not "too much Islam" but "too little Christianity."

"We have too few discussions about the Christian view of mankind," Merkel claimed in a recent speech. She then stressed that Germany needs to reflect more upon "the values that guide us, about our Judeo-Christian tradition." It was one way, Merkel maintained, of bringing "about cohesion in our society."

On one level, Merkel is surely stating the blindingly obvious. How can Europeans ask Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society and respect European values without Europeans themselves being clear in their own minds about what values are at the core of European identity and where these values come from?

And as much as significant portions of European society would like to deny it, it's simply a historical fact that the idea of Europe and European values such as liberty, equality before the law, and solidarity did not suddenly appear ex nihilo in the late 17th century with the various Enlightenments. Central to the formation of European identity and such values was the synthesis of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem achieved by Christianity following the Roman Empire's collapse in the West in 476 A.D.

Indeed there's plenty of evidence that the antecedents of most of the various freedoms and genuine achievements of the various Enlightenments are to be found in Christianity. There is increasing recognition, for example, that the idea of human rights was first given concrete expression by medieval canon lawyers.

Yet it is hardly a secret that the Judeo-Christian heritage sits very loosely on many European societies. We find this in a type of secular-fundamentalism -- exemplified by Spain's current Socialist government -- that has become fashionable among sections of the European Left. But the ambiguity also manifests itself in the persistence of historical legends that diminish, distort, and denigrate Christianity's contributions to European civilization.

A good example is the mythology of the so-called "Dark Ages" that permeates popular and elite discussion of European history. Most of the moral, political, and legal foundations of modern market economies, for instance, were established in Europe well before the 16th century. Likewise the scientific method was born in the Middle Ages. Medieval thinkers such as Albertus Magnus made crucial contributions to the development of the natural sciences. Yet despite these facts, many persist in claiming that market economies are essentially a post-Enlightenment phenomenon, or that Christianity is essentially "anti-science."

But the problem is not only with secular opinion. Since the 1950s, many European Christians have gradually reduced their Christian faith to a vacuous humanitarianism worthy of the best EU-funded NGO. One difficulty with "liberal Christianity" (or whatever's left of it) is that it isn't especially interested in affirming any Christian values that go beyond sentimental platitudes about tolerance and equality which are routinely emptied of any specific Christian content. It's goodbye Thomas Aquinas, hello John Rawls.

This makes it even more ironic that increasing numbers of secular European thinkers believe Europe can only reinvigorate its distinct identity and values through reengaging its Judeo-Christian heritage. This is certainly the conclusion of one of Germany's most prominent intellectuals, Jürgen Habermas.

A self-described "methodological atheist," Habermas has been insisting for some time that Europe no longer has the luxury of wallowing in historical denial. As Habermas wrote in his 2006 book, A Time of Transitions: "Christianity, and nothing else [is] the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of western civilization. To this day we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

It follows that any serious discussion of Europe's Christian values in the context of contemporary immigration and identity debates will require many Europeans to go beyond their often-truncated understandings of European history and Christianity. There's something paradoxical about this being facilitated by the increasing numbers of Muslims living in Europe. But such an engagement is arguably being made even more urgent by the economic reality that Europe will need even more immigrants if its present demographic winter persists for any significant period of time.

What Chancellor Merkel herself understands by "the Christian view of mankind" was not clear from her remarks. Nor is it evident that particular Christian ideas are always compatible with some Muslim positions. Despite all the interfaith chatter to the contrary, there are some fundamental theological differences between Christianity and Islam, many of which have implications for subjects ranging from religious liberty to the nature of the state. Merkel, however, is undoubtedly correct to insist that any discussion of immigration in Europe should involve Europeans worrying a little less about Islam and paying far more attention to knowing the truth about their own heritage and Christianity's place in it.

The truth doesn't just set us free. There's no future without it.

9/11, Islam and War

Via-AI


Walter Russell Mead

Nine years ago this morning I came up from the subway stop at 68th Street and Lexington Avenue to hear from the breakfast cart vendor that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers in lower Manhattan. It didn’t seem that important; I pictured a small two seater private plane crashing into a large building and hoped that no one had been killed. Once I got to my office, it became clear that something bigger had happened. Then came a groan from a group of people watching television a few doors down the hall; I rushed in to see the second plane hitting the second tower.

In the hours that followed, life in New York gradually fell apart. Great clouds of ash and smoke rose up from the fires; the transport system crashed. When the buildings collapsed, telephone service went down across the city. With the news of the attack on the Pentagon I went out to withdraw cash from my bank in fear that electric power also would fail. Traffic came to a halt; by early afternoon there were tens of thousands of grimy, dirty people trudging up the avenues of the city, walking home from lower Manhattan. The BBC asked me to come down to their studios near Times Square for an interview; it was almost impossible to get there — even more difficult to get back. I spent the night with friends; the subway system that had brought me into Manhattan could not get me home.

Nine years later, we are still living in the world that introduced itself on that grim and unforgettable day. Shadowy organizations of hate-crazed fanatics seek to destroy the foundations of civilized life. Satan, we are told, can appear as an Angel of Light; these grandiose, delusional fools have mistaken the King of Death for the Maker of the Universe. “Evil be thou my good,” is what Satan said as he contemplated the ruins of his hopes in Paradise Lost; this is what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have come to. When a bomb goes off in a mosque, they rejoice that God’s will is done. When schoolchildren die horribly in the ruins of a burning bus, they give thanks and praise to God. They pine for greater destruction, greater havoc, for mass deaths of millions; the blood of the innocent has become a drug they cannot live without.

The question of how to deal with these fanatical death-eaters has convulsed world and American politics ever since. It is fatal to ignore them, fatal also to react to their attacks in ways that inflate rather than diminish their support. The free peoples of the world ultimately learned to fight communism though not without many costly blunders and mistakes. We can and will defeat this new scourge, born like Nazism and communism of the hatreds and failures of the world. We will learn, we will grow, we will act and we will by God’s grace and God’s help win.

In some ways we are winning already. The greatest victory we have won in this war came on one of its most questionable battlefields: in Iraq. It was not a military victory, though it opened the door to military progress. It was a moral victory. And it was not something that Americans imposed on Muslims; it was a choice that Muslims made.

Nobody in the world had more reason to hate America and love Al-Qaeda than the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. After frustrating Iraqi nationalists and humiliating their pride by crushing Iraq’s attempted conquest of its “nineteenth province” (better known to the rest of the world as Kuwait), the US imposed and enforced crippling sanctions. We then invaded the country and overthrew a regime that for all its faults and crimes protected what many Sunnis saw as their rightful place in Iraq — and we handed over power to their despised Shi’a enemies and rivals.

Then the occupation failed. We made grandiose promises about all the good we would do: the schools, hospitals, pipelines and roads we would build, the peace we would establish, the security we would provide for the people. It was soon a sick joke; incompetence in Washington, poor management and poor choices on the ground in Iraq, a lack of preparation or intelligent planning for the realities of postwar Iraq turned the occupation into a bloody farce. America had replaced a bad Sunni government with anti-Sunni anarchy and chaos.

Iraqi Sunnis did not just learn of America’s failures by watching TV. They heard about Abu Ghraib from relatives and friends who were there. They learned about accidental shootings and humiliating searches at checkpoints by passing through these checkpoints, experiencing the humiliation, and mourning in the funerals of friends and neighbors who died. They lived without electricity, watched their jobs disappear, saw revenge-minded Shi’a take over the government jobs they once held, and watched militias storm through their neighborhoods, evicting Sunnis from their homes in an orgy of killing that the Americans could not or would not stop.

Into this hell stepped Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. “Brothers,” was their message: “We are the pious Muslims from all over the world. We share your faith. We are here to defend you from the American unbelievers and the Shi’a heretics. At great danger to ourselves, moved by pity for your troubles and our faith in God, we have come from all the corners of the umma to deliver you.”

But then something happened.

Sunni Iraqis took a long hard look at Al-Qaeda. They watched bombs go off in marketplaces and mosques. They watched reprisal killings of respected tribal elders and innocents. They watched undisciplined groups of fighters, freed from all moral and social restraint, innocent for the most part of any serious religious knowledge, imposed narrow and poorly conceived ideas on society by force in the name of an Islam Al-Qaeda neither understood nor respected.

And the Sunni Arabs of Iraq made a choice.

They saw Al-Qaeda at its best — volunteer freedom fighters come from around the world to fight for them — and they saw America at its worst, incompetent, insensitive, vacillating and violent.

And they chose the United States.

They decided that the future of their families, their children and their values was better served by aligning with the United States against the terrorists and against the fanatics.

What those Sunni Arabs in Iraq came to understand is the basic truth of this conflict. The war unleashed nine years ago is not a clash of civilizations between Islam and the west. It is a clash between civilization and barbarism, and in that clash the Americans and true Muslims are on the same side.

I have met many Muslims in the last nine years, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Kenya, Algeria, on the West Bank, Italy, France, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria, Lebanon and in many other countries who have reached the same conclusion.

Many — most — of these Muslims do not approve of many of the features in western and American life. Many — most — of these Muslims have profound differences with certain aspects of American foreign policy. I have engaged in some bitter and tough discussions during the last nine years, and like to think that maybe I have learned a few things.

But as we look back on the nine years since 9/11, one thing needs to kept clearly in view. The more the world’s Muslims see of Al-Qaeda and its agenda of indiscriminate murder, the less they like it.

And there is something more. Over the years I’ve also had the good fortune to meet many of the Americans who have served on the front lines of this conflict. I hear the same message from them. When General Petraeus and Secretary Gates denounced the Qu’ran-burning loons in Florida, they weren’t just speaking as PC commanders at the top. They were speaking out of the experience of American warfighters who have learned in the last nine years that at the end of the day the Muslim majority isn’t our enemy in the war on terror. That majority is our best and our most important ally in winning it.

Over and over in Iraq, American soldiers turned near-defeat into victory as they built relationships with Arab Muslims. American commanders staked the lives of the men under their command on the word of the sheikhs, the tribal elders, the village notables — and that word proved true. They gave good information, provided honest help, and thanks to their wisdom, their courage and their integrity Al-Qaeda in Iraq was pushed back.

This means many things, but here’s one of the most important. For the next generation, the American military is going to be led by people whose formative experience was the establishment of relations of trust and respect with angry, frustrated and suspicious Muslims under combat conditions in the Middle East. The American military knows deep in its guts that working with Muslims is the key to beating the bad guys.

Islam and America have both changed since 9/11. Some of the changes are for the better, some for the worse, and with others it is too soon to tell. The consequences flowing from that terrible morning nine years ago are still unfolding, and the world we thought we knew has gone.

But the principal goal of Al-Qaeda was clear. It wanted to establish its leadership of the Islamic world while launching a clash between Islam and the west. In this it has signally failed. Even in a time of violence and tension, Al-Qaeda is hated and scorned by growing majorities of the world’s Muslims. And in some of the world’s toughest hot spots, on the battlefields of Iraq, in the flooded farmlands of Pakistan, Muslims, Christians and people of all faiths and no faith are working together on common projects for the common good.

Al-Qaeda is failing not just because Americans have decided to fight it. Al-Qaeda is failing because the world’s Muslims are rejecting it.

Nobody knows what the future holds and whether new and terrible attacks like 9/11 or even worse may lie before us. But if Islam continues to rally against terror, there are sharp limits on how much havoc the bad guys can wreak.

It would be deeply satisfying if the final result of 9/11 was a new and richer understanding of Islam in America and of America in Islam. Nine years after the attack, I am more hopeful than ever that this is the course we are on.

Comparing Christianity and Islam

Via-American Thinker

By David Deming

Christianity and Islam are the largest religions in the world. Thirty-three percent of the world's population are Christian, twenty-one percent Muslim. The world's two largest religions have much in common, but they are also different in some crucial ways. The origins of both religions are fully described in my book, Science and Technology in World History, Vol. 2.

Both Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism. From Judaism, Christianity and Islam derived the doctrines of monotheism, prophecy, resurrection, and a belief in the existence of heaven and hell.

Both Islam and Christianity have a holy book. Christians consider the Bible the inspired word of God. But Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal word of God. Mohammed was merely transcribing the words of Allah, much as a court reporter does. Muslims therefore attribute greater spiritual authenticity to the Koran and Islam than to the Bible and Christianity.

In Catholicism, salvation is obtained through the sacraments of the Church, including baptism, penance, and the Eucharist. Most Protestant denominations hold the doctrine that salvation depends solely on faith in Jesus Christ. But in Islam, salvation is through works and is not limited to Muslims.

Christianity is focused on forgiveness, charity, and mercy, with a side dressing of apocalyptic visions, Hell, and the wrath of God. But Islam is centered on justice and the destruction of unbelievers. Allah is merciful -- but not to infidels. The early history of Christianity is one of persecution and martyrdom. Jesus himself submitted to crucifixion. In contrast, Islam was not born in submission and earnest entreaty, but in warfare against the enemies of Allah.

After the Hegira, Mohammed and his followers began a jihad against their pagan enemies in Mecca. At the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, Mohammed's servant found one of his master's enemies lying wounded on the battlefield. He cut off the man's head and presented it to Mohammed as a present. The Prophet was overjoyed. He exclaimed, "The head of the enemy of Allah! It is more acceptable to me than the choicest camel in all Arabia." After the bodies of his foes were cast into a pit, Mohammed stood at the edge of the pit and taunted the dead by asking, "Have you found that what Allah threatened is true?"

Consider how Jesus and Mohammed handled what was essentially the same problem. A woman who had committed adultery was brought before Jesus for judgment. As she had been caught in the very act, there was no question of her guilt. The sentence dictated by Mosaic Law was death by stoning, but Jesus showed mercy. He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Embarrassed, the woman's accusers dropped their rocks and walked away. Jesus told the woman to go home and repent. But when a man and a woman who had committed adultery (with each other) were brought before Mohammed, he exclaimed, "Stone them," and the pair was executed.

Christians tend to attribute greater spiritual authenticity to Christianity because of its emphasis on mercy and forgiveness. But in fact, the God of the Christians is as unrelenting as Allah in His condemnation of unbelievers. In Luke, Jesus describes how God tortured a rich man in Hell by burning him. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus proclaims that at the Last Judgment, God will send out angels to gather the "children of the wicked one" and "cast them into a furnace of fire."

No faith has an unblemished history of extending charity to the enemies of God. When Christian Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 AD, they massacred the Muslims and Jews. Raymond of Aguilers claimed that "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." This was no doubt an exaggeration, but nevertheless an indication of terrible mayhem. To the atrocities committed under the banner of Christianity we could add the Inquisition, the Witch Mania, and the infamous Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of the Witches), first published in 1487 AD.

The roots of Christian charity lie in the ethics advocated by the Hebrew prophets. But the Jews also killed the enemies of God. In the book of Deuteronomy, God gave the Hebrews license to destroy their enemies and plunder their cities. "Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them."

We know more about Mohammed than Jesus because the latter was recognized during his lifetime as the founder of Islam. Thus, there were contemporary biographies and written records. In contrast, no one recognized Jesus as an important person in his own lifetime. Even as late as fifty years after his death, Jesus remained nearly a complete unknown to the Mediterranean world. Our primary sources for the life and teachings of Jesus are the Gospels. And the Gospels were never intended to be objective historical documents. They were written to proselytize. The author of John explains that "these are written so that you may believe."

In the West, religion is largely treated as a matter of conscience, and there is a tradition of freedom of religion. But Islam is a way of life, not just a personal belief. Individual behavior is specified in the Koran. Gambling and the consumption of both pork and alcohol are forbidden. Slavery is allowed, but slave owners are admonished to treat their servants well. Fornication is punishable by scourging. To allow individual transgressions would undermine the moral fabric that binds Islamic societies together.

Perhaps no aspect of Islam is more misunderstood by Western Christians than its role in government. Jesus began a tradition of divorcing Christianity from secular government by declaring that people should not confuse secular and spiritual obligations. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Jesus also said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

But there is no tradition of separating government and religion in Islam. Indeed, such a separation would likely strike a Muslim as insane. Government exists to enforce moral rules of behavior, and morality is defined by religion. The two are therefore inexorably intertwined.

Government in Islamic countries is necessarily theocratic. The Koran is a handbook for an entire system of government. In Life of Mahomet, William Muir explains, "Scattered throughout ... [the Koran are] ... the archives of a theocratic government in all its departments ... The elements of a code both criminal and civil are ... introduced. Punishments for certain offences are specified, and a mass of legislation laid down for the tutelage of orphans, for marriage, divorce, sales, bargains, wills, evidence, usury and similar concerns."

Westerners seem oblivious to the fact that not everyone in the world believes in the superiority of democratic government. The Greek system of democracy is foreign to Islam. Muslims no more appreciate having a democratic government forced upon them than Westerners would like being forced to live under an Islamic theocracy.

Women have an inferior status in both Christianity and Islam. Genesis states that God first created Adam. Eve was sort of an afterthought, manufactured purely to be a helper and companion for the man, Adam. And it was the scheming Eve who created original sin by talking the guileless Adam into eating the forbidden fruit. St. Paul forbade women to speak in church and instructed them to submit to their husbands. According to Paul, the man was not "created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

In Sura 4, the Koran plainly states that "men are superior to women." Women are instructed to dress modestly. A "virtuous" woman is one who is "obedient." If she is not obedient, her husband is allowed to scourge her. But the husband is admonished not to punish a virtuous woman.

God does not speak to me, so I cannot make any substantive comment on the degree to which any religion may be correct or incorrect. However, no matter what our personal beliefs are, it is important that we recognize the significant differences between Christianity and Islam.


David Deming is associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma and the author of Science and Technology in World History: The Ancient World and Classical Civilization, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2.
19 Comments on "Comparing Christianity and Islam"