Against Conciliation and Appeasement
I have argued more than once that radical Islam is an implacable and ruthless foe that cannot be appeased or conciliated. The good Baron over at Gates of Vienna makes the case even better than I have in his Five Arguments Against Conciliation.
It is also essential to realize, as the good Baron does realize, that the Left is complicit and functions as jihad enablers. Jonah Goldberg has a good column on this.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Hypocrisy in Reverse
- Hypocrisy and Pope Benedict
- Krauthammer on Tolerance
- Sam Harris: A Liberal Who Understands the Threat of Militant Islam
- Against Conciliation and Appeasement
- The Danger of Appeasing the Intolerant
- On Toleration: With a Little Help from Kolakowski
- Nihilist T-Shirt
- Jihadist T-Shirt
- Should the Pope Apologize? For What?
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Wednesday September 20, 2006 at 5:00pm
This is a mixture of recta and obliqua, but we cannot be in any doubt that he quotes with approval. A bit like the sermons that go 'Our Lord said that..." which though obliqua are an implicit recta.
Which puts the infamous quotation ("Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.") in context.
Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly. We cannot spread by the sword the faith we preach.
The New Testament (not Old!) is an extraordinary contrast to the Koran. One of the first things in Mark you find is "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners". And Jesus says "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (2:18).
Of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the young kid on the block. Hence a certain cockiness and aggressiveness. Is there any chance that Islam will mellow out like Christianity did?
This isn't a case of Islam being a young religion that has to grow up, it is the case of Islam being a violent religion.
Funny you should mention it. I just got finished reading Bernard Lewis's piece. His work is outstanding, though the late Edward Said would beg to differ.
Dave,
I was thinking of the Inquisition and the institutionalized violence the Church brought to bear on great men like Galileo.
But I basically agree with you. Muslims forget the the Crusades were a RESPONSE to their initial landgrab.
For me it is still an open question whether Islam is intrinsically violent or whether its violence is accidental to it.
Just to nuance: The first four centuries of spreading Christianity have not only been peaceful and reasonable at all. Especially in the second half of the fourth century, Christianity used coercion and force to spread the word. In these centuries, in addition, many controversial matter within the church were settled only after (internal) fights, many of them brutal.
Please go and read this.
The prospect of waiting another 600 years for Islam to mellow out seems not so attractive, though...
although I understand what you mean and can in a sense agree with you: I find this way of putting it far too blunt. I would share Bill's distinction between 'Islam' and 'Militant Islam'. We are fighting the latter at the moment, I think.
I see from clicking on your link that the book you refer us to was cited three times by Peter Brown. That is a defeasible indicator that it is worth taking seriously. Brown's biography of Augustine is magisterial.
Can you cite a couple of clear examples of Christianity's use of the sword in spreading its message in the A.D. 100-400 time period?
According to MacMullen, “after Saint Paul, the church had no mission, it made no organized or official approach to unbelievers; rather, it left everything to the individual” (p.34) and “from around A.D. 100 to 312, Christians as such avoided attention.” (p.35).
So far so good, but in the last four decades of the 4th century, the atmosphere became less friendly: between 361-363, emperor Julian launched a blitzkrieg against the Christians. On the other hand, Constantine’s edicts show him promoting hatred against non-Christians. Yet, “[…] relations between Christians and non-Christians were, if unpleasant, at least not very bloody or dramatic […] up to the 380s” (p.91)
One example of striking violence concerns the city of Gaza (sic), which was entirely converted by force. MacMullen uses the ‘Life of Porphyry’ as a source: “All Gaza’s temples are torn down and burned and the city is cleansed of every belief but the Christian (§103). The most stubborn opponents […] are tied up, marched away […] severely tortured, and all killed mala morte, “a great number” (§99).” (p.89, italics MacMullen's) The effect was clear: “Gaza was very largely non-Christian before Porphyry’s time, whereas, at the end, all local religious traditions had been entirely suppressed.” (p.89)
Persecution of non-Christians also took place, partly made possible by laws and leaders. My beloved Augustine, unfortunately, also played a part. He addressed his congregation in Carthage thus: “‘that all superstitions of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’” (p.95; in Augustine’s Sermo 24.6) - with nasty results downtown.
In the 380s, “non-Christian cults came under rather suddenly increased attack of a physical sort” (p.97) Around 385, a temple near Edessa was razed. Strikingly, from here on, monks played a role in violence, and not very friendly either: a leader of a group of monks “boasted, “I peacefully removed your gods… there is no such thing as ‘robbery’ for those who truly possess Christ” (p.98).
As concerns troubles within Christianity: “Sectarian rivalry was […] a very real thing, a spur to great exertions” (p.93) Internal violence was flowering with the many sects such as Arians, Donatists and Meletians. Especially Egypt and North Africa had many conflicts in the last decades of the 4th century. Outside these areas, one example shows the ways in which coercion was also used to produce conformity of cult within the church: “the law imposing the death penalty for celebrating Easter on the wrong day of the year” (p.93)
Back to topic: Of course I can see that the amount of violence differs in Christianity and Islam, but these facts at least make the contrast less black-and-white.
Thomas,
Thanks for the details. You are right about Augustine, unfortunately. See Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, pp. 230 ff.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.