The Islamic State: Air Strikes, Diplomacy, and Remembering Sargon of Akkad

I've said it before: war is not nice. Things get broken. People die.

But sometimes it's better than the alternative.


(From U.S. Central Command / Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("A still image taken from video provided by the U.S. Central Command shows a damaged building at an Islamic State compound near the northern Syrian town of Ar Raqqah, following an air strike. "
(Reuters))

"French, U.S. planes strike Islamic State, Britain to join coalition"
Arshad Mohammed, Tom Perry; Reuters (September 25, 2014)

"French fighter jets struck Islamic State targets in Iraq on Thursday, and the United States hit them in Syria, as a U.S.-led coalition to fight the militants gained momentum with an announcement that Britain would join.

"The French strikes were a prompt answer to the beheading of a French tourist in Algeria by militants, who said the killing was punishment for Paris' decision last week to become the first European country to join the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

"In the United States, FBI Director James Comey said Washington had identified the masked Islamic State militant in videos with a knife at the beheading of two American hostages in recent weeks. Those acts helped galvanize Washington's bombing campaign.

" 'I'm not going to tell you who I believe it is,' Comey told reporters. He said he knew the person's nationality, but declined to give further details...."

The Reuters article goes on to say that "a European government source familiar with the investigation said the accent indicated the man was from London and likely from a community of immigrants."

There's more, about "credible intelligence that Islamic State networks in Iraq were plotting to attack U.S. and French subway trains" and a growing coalition of nations. Apparently quite a number of Arab nations have already joined, with European leaders a bit slow to get with the program.

I don't know whether the Europeans are following the 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' philosophy, aren't sure how their constituency will react, or haven't sobered up yet.

Either way, my guess is that quite a few European governments will decide that, on the whole, getting their butts saved by a U.S.-led coalition is better than losing their heads under an Islamic State in their home territory.

I'd like to believe that there's a chance for a peaceful resolution to the current mess. The folks running The "Islamic State" are human, and in principle could decide that their best course of action is negotiating: followed by pursuing their goals in a less violent way.

Given humanity's record, that outcome does not seem likely.

Making Mistakes, Making Sense

I run into folks who feel that the world's problems are cause by Islam; others who feel the same way about Christianity, and some who say that all religion causes trouble.

Considering how the first two lots act, I have some sympathy for the latter. But I think 'all of the above' make the mistake of overgeneralization.

Some Christians behave badly. So do some Muslims. But some of us have our heads screwed on straight, and understand our faith. A case in point, from the Reuters article:

"...More than 120 Islamic scholars from around the world, including many of the most senior figures in Sunni Islam, issued an open letter denouncing Islamic State. Challenging the group with theological arguments, they described its interpretation of the faith as 'a great wrong and an offense to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.'

"'You have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder,' said the letter, signed by figures from across the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco. "
(Arshad Mohammed, Tom Perry; Reuters)

I'm not a Muslim, by the way. I'm a Catholic: which in some American circles is just as bad.

I'm assuming that the "Islamic State" mentioned in the Reuters article is another name for ISIS, (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). I've discussed that lot in another blog:

Unhappy About Change

Apparently ISIS, the folks who killed James Foley, aren't happy with today's world. They seem to yearn for the 'good old days,' when they believe Islam measured up to their standards and preferences. They're probably quite sincere: and certainly willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Victims of their zeal include  Shia Muslims, Druze, Mandeans, Shabaks, Yazidis, and Christians. You'll find more about ISIS at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." (Wikipedia)

Folks being unhappy about change isn't a uniquely Muslim experience.

I run into Catholics who seem convinced that we should return to the 'good old days' — as they remember them. Catholics who yearn for yesteryear occasionally get together and form their own little micro-church, but don't seem inclined to kill outsiders.

I'd say 'Christians are better than that:' but realize that now and then some of us go rogue.

The nearest thing America has had to ISIS are groups like the Ku Klux Klan: folks who seem convinced that they're 'protecting' America from 'foreigners' and our 'evil' ways.
(A Catholic Citizen in America (August 24, 2014))

Taking the Long View: and Hope

I think today's conflict between the Islamic State/ISIS and everyone who like living in the 21st century will most likely end violently. I am also quite certain that it will end.

Even if the Islamic State endures the end of this conflict, and stays in control of Subartu, they won't stay in control. Sargon of Akkad conquered Subartu about 43 centuries back. Then he died, his empire fell, and the territory has changed hands quite a few times since.

Change happens. How change happens depends on what we do.

I hope that humanity will eventually cobble together an international authority "with the necessary competence and power" to end war and settle disputes with justice and mercy.¹

"...Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

"There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law...."
("Locksley Hall," Alfred, Lord Tennyson)

Those were among my favorite lines of poetry in my youth. A half-century later, they still are; although I've learned to temper my hope with patience.

Cobbling together a globe-spanning 'Council of Humanity' will, I think, take generations. Centuries. But I think it will be worth the effort. And that's another topic.

Related posts:

• Iraq
  • "Not-So-Good News from Iraq: Arrest Warrant; Debatable Confessions, and Politics"
    (December 19, 2011)
  • "Iraq, Elections, the Usual News, and Kids With Inky Fingers"
    (March 7, 2010)
  • "Truck Bombing in Iraq: Lions of Islam Hit Another Mosque"
    (June 21, 2009)
  • "Iraq, Freedom, and a Reality Check"
    (July 7, 2008)
  • "Iranian Nukes, Israeli Attack, Diplomacy, and Common Sense"
    (June 21, 2008)
• Syria
  • "Syria, Chemical Weapons, and More of the Same"
    (August 27, 2013)
  • "Dead Bodies at the University: Business as Usual in Syria"
    (January 15, 2013)
  • "Dead Syrians, Stability, and Getting a Grip"
    (June 9, 2012)
  • "Killings in Houla: There's Hope in What Wasn't Said"
    (May 26, 2012)
  • "Six Battalions, the United Nations, ' - - - and it is the Fault of the Jews' "
    (May 2, 2012)
• Perspective
  • "Caesar, Civilization, Dealing With Change — and Building a Better World"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (August 31, 2014)
    Particularly
    • It's the End of Civilization as We Know It: And About Time!
    • The Code of Hammurabi, Plus 3,700 years: Looking at the Big Picture
  • " 'All are Equal Before God' — Rights of Humanity and a Right of the Aggressor"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (August 24, 2014)
  • "Memorial Day: War; Celebrating; Remembering; and Building a Better World"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (May 26, 2014)
  • "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
    (March 18, 2011)
  • " 'Just War:' Unpleasant, but Not a Contradiction in Terms"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (March 22, 2011)

---

¹ ("Gaudium et Spes," 79; Pope Paul VI (December 7, 1965)

I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, and the 'good old days' when America's establishment was run by WASPs: so I understand why some folks fear a "world government" almost as much as they fear commies, Republicans, foreigners, or right-wing extremists.

But I also think that government of some sort is necessary, and that humanity may eventually find a way to settle disputes without mass homicide. As for fears that 'the government' will take away freedom: that is a reasonable concern. How some folks react to that concern is — another matter.

I am a Catholic, so my faith requires that I respect and defend the freedom of everyone.

More of my take on government and freedom:

• "Freedom for 'People of Any Faith or No Faith At All'"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (November 9, 2012)
• "Getting a Grip About Politics and Principles"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (June 18, 2013)
• "Freedom, Fear, and the Internet"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 28, 2012)

Spiritual Leader of 1,000,000,000 Doesn't Meet With Los Angeles Advocate!

"US Muslim Group Declines to Meet Pope"
Associated Press (April 15, 2008)

Excerpts:

"Unease with Pope Benedict XVI's approach to Islam has led a U.S. Muslim group to decline joining in an interfaith event with him later this week.
"Several other U.S. Muslim leaders expressed similar concerns about the pope, but pledged to participate in the Washington gathering, saying the two faiths should do everything possible to improve relations.
" 'Our going there is more out of respect for the Catholic Church itself,' said Muzammil H. Siddiqi, chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, which interprets Islamic law. 'Popes come and go, but the church is there.' "

"But Salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles, said the event seemed 'more ceremonial than substantive' and his organization would not participate. He said he was disappointed that no time was made in the pope's six-day trip for even a brief private meeting with U.S. Muslim leaders."

"Muslims in many nations reacted angrily when the pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor connecting Islam with violence in a 2006 speech at Germany's Regensburg University. Tensions eased after Benedict traveled to Turkey that same year, visiting Istanbul's famous Blue Mosque.
"The pope was applauded for organizing a Nov. 4-6 meeting in Rome with Muslim religious leaders and scholars, as part of a push for more dialogue between Catholics and Muslims.
"But many Muslims said the pontiff insulted them on Easter Sunday in St. Peter's Basilica, when he baptized Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born commentator who has criticized what he called the "inherent" violence in Islam. Islamic leaders said the prominence of the ceremony, not the conversion itself, was troubling."

Curiously, the article doesn't mention the Pope's comments after the death of an Iraqi archbishop: "Pope calls death of Iraqi archbishop 'act of inhuman violence'" (Catholic News Service (March 14, 2008).

Excerpt: "Pope Benedict XVI called the kidnapping and death of an Iraqi archbishop 'an act of inhuman violence that offends the dignity of the human being and seriously harms the ... coexistence among the beloved Iraqi people.' "

I wouldn't have been very surprised, if someone had identified the Pope's characterizing the killing of a Catholic archbishop by Muslims as a "divisive" statement, by the loose standards I've gotten used to.

It's a relief that the Fiqh Council of North America spokesman said "Popes come and go, but the church is there." That's a level of understanding that I haven't always seen expressed by non-Islamic Americans.

As for the desire to have 'dialog,' Pope Benedict XVI has a rather full schedule during his visit to America. And, although it would be nice to have the vicar of Christ to about 1,000,000,000 people around the world sit down with an advocacy group in a country that isn't known for being particularly Catholic: I think that, if I were in the position of the Los Angeles Muslim advocate, I'd seriously consider going to the Holy See, instead.

But then, I'm one of those people who think that, if I wanted to 'dialog with' the American President, I'd go to Washington, DC, rather than expect the President to come to Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

April Fools Prank? I Don't Think So: Islam Watch Reports Imam's Bloodthirsty Beliefs

A disturbing news report is starting to circulate in the blogosphere.

One version:
"Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished"
FOXNews.com (April 1, 2008)

It leads with: "A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape."

What follows is a chilling set of excerpts from a page on Islam Watch, repeating a London imam's statements about the proper treatment of non-Muslims.

A Lesson to Learn: Always Check Your Source

The original Islam Watch report is quite likely accurate: and it links to a 3 minute, 40 second interview video in which the beliefs reflected in the report are confirmed in general, if not in detail.

The news report, however, contains a serious error. Islam Watch is described as "a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings ...."

Islam Watch's 'about us' page ("Who are we?") Reads in part: "We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us had taken a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth. ..."

There's a considerable difference between "Muslim" and self-described "Muslim apostate."¹ People who, for whatever reason, turn away from the faith into which they were born may exaggerate or over-generalize flaws in the familial faith.

Apostate, Shmapostate, What's the Big Deal?

In news reporting, accuracy tends to encourage belief. Lack of accuracy does the opposite. If you read an article about American history that started with the words, "Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary War hero...", would you be more or less inclined to believe the rest?

I think there are two dangers here:

1. Dismissing Islam Watch's report, because of the reporting error - or for other reasons
2. Taking Islam Watch's report on the Imam as being representative of all Islam.

Muslims Against Sharia," for example, is an organization of (non-apostate) Muslims whose stated goals are to educate

• Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
• Non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)
• Both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror

That's a far cry from the 'kill the infidel! Rape his women!' policy of Imam Abdul Makin.

Finally, Something About the Islam Watch Report

A London Imam has been making statements that my pagan ancestors, a dozen centuries or so back, would have recognized as being similar to their own customs and beliefs. They might have decided to do unto him and his, before he had a chance to do unto them, but I don't think they'd have been very shocked by his words.

That was then. Christian missionaries, the Magna Carta, and several centuries of social and administrative reform changed the culture of Europe> One of Europe's more successful colonies, America, took those changes and made some more.

Imam Abdul Makin and his predecessors don't seem to have been in the loop.

Here's part of what Islam Watch had to say:

"London Imam's Attempt to Carry Out Sunna Gone Awry"
Islam Watch (March 22, 2008)

"During a question answer session in East London Mosque, preacher Imam Abdul Makin was asked by a niqabi muslima about recent fatwa from a well known Imam.

"Naqabi Woman: 'One eyed hooked Imam Hamza Mesri said muslims can kill British infidels and have sex with their wives and daughters, Do you agree with him?'

"Imam: 'It is not what Imam Hamza said nor is there a question of my agreeing with him or not. It is in Quran thus those are Allah's orders.'

"N.W.: 'But why would Allah tell muslims to kill and rape innocent non muslims?'

"Imam: 'Because Non-muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet. If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top muslim lawyer of Britain, Anjem Choudhary (Video).'

"N.W. 'But our Prophet was sent as a mercy for all the humanity; he never hurt any body in his life'

"Imam: 'Yes he never hurt a muslim in his life. But Allah said non-muslim are lowest beasts and worst creatures in ayas 8.22,8.55,95.5 and 98.6 and muslim are ordered to kill them.' "

Finally, that 3:40 interview video on YouTube is an informative, if unpleasant, experience. The Muslim leader, asked if he would condemn new attacks on London said: "No, I can never condemn a Muslim brother. I would never condemn a Muslim brother. I will always stand with my Muslim brother ... whether he is an oppressor, or oppressed."

That's Scary, But is it Islam?

I'd like to think that Imam Hamza Mesri is as much like many other Muslim leaders, as James Warren "Jim" Jones was to Billy Graham. The existence of groups like Muslims Against Sharia and individuals like Mahathir Mohamad make me think that there are many followers of Islam who can tolerate the presence of people who aren't exactly like them. Maybe, enough to counteract people like the London imam.

---

¹ (Apostate: "One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause." - The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, on Bartleby.com)

Cultural Acid Test: Islam and Hygiene, Rights and Responsibilities

I think the War on Terror will be a useful acid test for both Islamic and western cultures. I've written before about the challenges facing Islam ("Islam, Assault, Culture, and a Houston Area Crisis Hotline" (February 1, 2008), for example).

Contemporary western culture is having some of its basic assumptions tested, too.

For at least three decades, at least in America, western culture has been extremely concerned about individual rights. We're not to discriminate against people: and our legislators and regulators gave us a lavish pile of overlapping rules to make sure that what they think is discrimination doesn't happen.

It looks like a not-altogether-unreasonable fear of discrimination has seeped into Britain's law, too.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the system has worked, more or less. Partly, I think, because all but the most radical 'rights' enthusiasts were careful about what 'rights' they demanded.

That seems to be changing.

Europe and America now have sizable populations of Muslims, whose culture developed independently of the Magna Carta and germ theory. Basic western assumptions about the balance of individual rights and social responsibilities are being tested.

Over in United Kingdom, hospitals and medical facilities, hundreds of peope have died from MRSA and Clostridium difficile infections. So, the Department of Health said that all doctors should be "bare below the elbow". There was no prurient interest involved.

As a professor of microbiology at Imperial College London, Dr Mark Enright, said: "To wash your hands properly, and reduce the risks of MRSA and C.difficile, you have to be able to wash the whole area around the wrist.

Common sense? Apparently not.

• Some Birmingham University students would rather to quit their studies than expose their arms
• A Sheffield University medic refused to "scrub:" it would have left her forearms exposed
• Several Leicester University students wouldn't roll their sleeves up to the elbow for "appropriate hand washing"

You guessed it: the no-roll medical types were all Muslim.

These people aren't isolated crackpots.

The Islamic Medical Association (IMA) insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam. Here's how the IMA put it: "No practicing Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow."

The IMA isn't pro-germ, though. Its spokesman, Dr Majid Katme, say that sterile disposable gloves that run up the arm would be better than bare skin. Think throw-away evening gloves. Dr. Katme may have a point, though.

This to-scrub or not-to-scrub question is quite serious in the United Kingdom.

On the one hand, there are people whose religious beliefs (apparently) forbid them from following contemporary hygiene rules. On the other hand, there are people who believe that it's time to stop killing patients with avoidable infections.

Conservative MEP (Member of European Parliament, I think), former hospital consultant and infidel, Dr Charles Tannock, has a possible solution: "Perhaps these women should not be choosing medicine as a career if they feel unable to abide by the guidelines that everyone else has to follow."

That makes sense to me. 'If you can't accept the rules, don't join the club.' I know of someone who is taking medical training, but will probably move to another state to work. If he stays where he is, he'd be required to perform executions: which goes against his beliefs.

It's not that easy, of course. The British legal system. Like America's and many if not most western countries', has a satchel-full of anti-discrimination laws.

Since the modest medics are invoking religious belief, the odds are that they'll sue, if hospitals or universities insist on their washing before medical procedures.

My guess is that Dr. Katme's disposable evening gloves will be used, after a few hundred more people die in British hospitals. And, that if British courts are as badly fouled up as America's, several law firms will make obscene profits by pushing 'discrimination' lawsuits.

Finally, this isn't a Muslim/non-Muslim issue. There are at least four groups involved:

• Traditional Muslims
• Contemporary Muslims
• Traditional westerners
• Modern westerners

In my view, traditional Muslim and traditional western culture have more in common with each other than either has with modern western culture. And, contemporary-culture Muslims should, I think, take a hard look at how modern western culture has treated traditional western culture, before they decide embrace the modern ethic.

My hope is that people on all sides of the cultural divide take a long, hard look at which of their beliefs are indispensable, and how they can accommodate people whose beliefs are not exactly the same as theirs.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Muslims Chant Death to America! Death to Israel!" at Hajj Part 1

That headline is 'accurate,' but misleading. Very misleading, I hope. I'll save my ongoing rant about news and truth for the next post.

Muslims from all over the world are at Mecca, for Hajj. It's a very big deal for Muslims, one of the five pillars of Islam: "a pinnacle of worship in order that Muslims who gather to perform Hajj can praise their Lord and Master, be thankful for His blessings, and humbly pray to Him for the removal of their difficulties. Muslims living in various parts of the world get to know each other, lay the foundation of social culture, give advice to each other, and provide opportunity for collective struggle.

I'm a bit disquieted by that "collective struggle" business. It's too close to the 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains' philosophy I kept running into, back in the "good old days" of the sixties and seventies. (And yes, I know that a better translation is "Proletarians of all countries, Unite!")

However, Hajj predates Marx and Lennin by centuries, and is unquestionably one of the most important, and well-known, aspects of Islam.

It's also a wonderful opportunity for people and organizations to get attention.

For example, one group had "a brief rally held by several hundred Iranian pilgrims, calling on Muslims to unite against the U.S. and Israel, which they said 'dominate the Muslim world.' "

That rally is yearly affair, set up by the Iranian government. This year there were "several hundred Iranian pilgrims" calling the faithful to unite against America and Israel. In a crowd of "millions of Muslims," about 1/10,000 of the Muslims engaged in Hajj were at the Iranian rally

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei sent an envoy with a message, telling Muslims that "hajj requires them to show love for God and to 'expel, fight and stand up to Satan' -- lessons Muslims 'have to learn all over the world.' " Also that "They are hatching plots in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan and pitting one section of Muslims against the other," Supreme Leader's envoy Ayatollah Mohammadi Reyshahri read from the statement.

And, the rally had the usual "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" chants against two nations that Iran's leaders say are the enemies of Allah. But, being good Muslims, the Iranian rally didn't have the usual fist shaking. Hajj is, after all, a place where aggressiveness, arguments and disputes are left behind.

I'd like to think that "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" - and the assumption that America and Israel are enemies of Allah - are ideas that some Muslims question: but I could be wrong.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

"Peace For Our Time," or "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" That Lead to Peace?

The year 2007 is winding down. It's been a big year.

• Cries to set a date for abandoning Iraq are fading as it becomes embarrassingly obvious that Coalition forces and Iraqis are succeeding in rooting out Al Qaeda in that country.
• "Islamic" wisdom and justice has been on display, in cases like the "Girl from Qatif" and her male companion who were raped - and therefore convicted to imprisonment and lashes.
• The many facets of Muslim culture and sensitive infidels brought us
  • A British proposal for rotating hospital beds to address an issue that hadn't been raised
  • A Sudanese Court jailed a British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, to save Islam from a teddy bear
  • But
    • A Peacebuilding Fellow with the American Islamic Congress, said, "Ms. Gibbons needs to be freed at once"
    • The British teacher's release was negotiated by Britain's Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and Lord Nazir Ahmed.
• Presidential election campaigns are recycling the usual nincompoopery ("Here Come the Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!," "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!").

That American election concerns me. First, as an American, I'll need to select a candidate from a somewhat unpromising field. Second, as someone living on Earth, I'll have to live with the decisions that the winner makes.

I think that the most immediate, and critical, foreign policy issue for America - and every other country - is the War on Terror.

On the one hand, religious fanatics have a clear vision of the sort of world they want: one in which Islam is safe from blasphemous teddy bears; and where rape victims face the lash and imprisonment (I know: the Saudi King pardoned the "Girl from Qatif" today - there'll be more on that in another post).

On the other hand, I see a western civilization with a distressing unwillingness to recognize that radical Islam isn't an issue that can be solved with encounter groups and an increase in tolerance.

In my opinion, Islamic leaders will have to decide whether they want the Islam of honor killings, or whether they're willing to wrench their beliefs loose from ancient Middle Eastern cultural norms.

I also believe that western leaders must seriously re-think the sort of radical individualism and secularism that has soaked into every fiber of western culture.

And we need to recognize that the War on Terror

• Isn't limited to a few countries in the Middle East
• Probably won't be over for many years (or, likely enough, many decades)
• Won't be over until an enormous amount of work is done in both Muslim and non-Muslim cultures

The good news is that hard-nosed, clear-eyed leaders do appear now and again. Over sixty years ago, England had such a leader. I'm going to end this post with the end of Winston Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister to the House of Commons.

I hope that America gets a leader with this combination of guts and brains. Soon.

"... I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.'

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.

"You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

"You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

"Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.

"But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

(Quote from The Churchill Centre (www.winstonchurchill.org):
Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat
First Speech as Prime Minister, May 13, 1940, to House of Commons.)

Ten Iraqi Sheiks Kidnapped: Who's Promoting Islam Here?

Gunmen in Iraq kidnapped Ten Iraqi Sheiks who were returning home to Diyala province from a meeting in Baghdad. Since they were part of an 'Awakening Council,' a term used by organizations in Iraq like the Anbar Awakening, the odds are that Al Qaeda in Iraq snatched them.

I didn't find any details about the sheiks, except that seven are Sunnis and three are Shiites.

Although it's unlikely, I hope that these brave men escape, or are rescued.

I continue to be impressed by Iraqi leaders: those at local and regional levels, at any rate. Their heroic decision to defend their people, and their country, against Al Qaeda in Iraq may save Iraq from the sort of tyranny Afghanistan experienced.

Another point: These sheiks are Muslims. They oppose Al Qaeda in Iraq, that claims to promote Islam. I don't doubt that the sheiks follow Islam. I do think that Al Qaeda in Iraq, and other "Islamic" terrorist groups, may be no more representative of Islam, than the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas is representative of Babtists, or Christianity in general.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Muslim Leaders Call For Dialog! Pope Told "Survival of World" at Stake!!

Before getting on with this post, Happy Eid.

Eid al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan, is sweeping westward, as the moon is sighted. (If I am wrong about that, please forgive me: I'm an infidel, and not up to speed on what details of what all the varieties of Islam believe. I briefly discussed Eid in another post, and would appreciate knowledgeable comments.)

A Very Nice Idea

I don't know if the upcoming end of Ramadan is what prompted "an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran."

Sounds nice.

Maybe

The Times (UK) quoted part of the letter: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

"Oppress." That's par for the course, I'm afraid. "Oppression" seems to have been a favorite word for getting sympathy, ever since "workers of the world unite" became a catch-phrase.

As far as the idea of talking to find out what common ground Christianity and Islam have, that's fine: providing that it's discussion, and not a photo-op or platform for speeches.

I'm disappointed by the apparent assumption that the 'Christian west' is trying to oppress poor, innocent Muslims. It may seem that way, to those who believe that the Great Satan America was supposed to collapse along with the Twin Towers.

The process of freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban must have come as a terrible shock. And the prospect of a free Iraq, delivered from a brutal dictator by non-Muslims can't be helping.

I'm with Ruth Gledhill, the Times religion correspondent, at least to an extent.

She quotes Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, a leading Anglican expert on Islam, and the Bishop of Rochester. He was born in Pakistan, and is glad that over a hundred Muslim leaders want to talk with Christians. "But what I would stress is that dialog between partners must be conducted in the integrity of each faith," he said. "One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialog must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that."

The Muslims, naturally, are strict monotheists. And, they think that Christians should be, too. That's where the trouble starts, on a theological level. Dr. Nazir-Ali said: "One thing the document implies is that Christians have compromised their monotheism. It does this by implication, with all the business of saying we must agree that God is only one and not associated with partners, that we must not take others for Lord. It refers to various verses in the Koran which accuse Christians of taking Jesus and others as their Lord besides Allah." (Emphasis is mine)

Caution! Religious Content!

If you don't like to read religious stuff, skip the next paragraph.

(A little background may be needed here: Christians, aside from a few groups that didn't like the idea, believe in a Triune God. Not three gods: one God, three persons. If you find that hard to understand, join the club. It's a Mystery. Literally. "The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the 'consubstantial Trinity.' The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: 'The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God.' In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): 'Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.'" - excerpt from the Catholic Catechism.

Let's All Agree to be Like Us

I hope that this call for dialog isn't as one-sided as it sounds. But this sounds like Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. You may remember him. He's the fellow who gave a $10,000,000 check to New York City after the 9/11 attack, and then said that the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." And that the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause...."

Somehow, I don't think this "dialog" is going to go all that well. And, when at least some of the Muslims are disappointed, I'd say that the odds are that Christians, and particularly the Pope, will be blamed.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred