Not Peace But a Sword

A very sweet Catholic lady I knew, when confronted with an example of rabid anti-Catholicism, said, “I don’t understand this. I don’t think I hate anybody because of their religion, but I probably love Muslims the least.” I couldn’t disagree.

It’s hard not to perceive Muslims as a hateful threat to Christianity and our own culture. It’s difficult to avoid racist feelings and religious bigotry. What Christian can honestly say that they have not felt a frisson of fear and dislike when they see a Muslim woman in a burqa or a swarthy Muslim man in his native dress? One tries to put such feelings on one side, but still there is a repugnance one has to overcome to be open minded and learn about Islam.

Robert Spencer is the editor of jihadwatch.org, and expert in Islam, advisor to the US security services and a Catholic. In Not Peace But a Sword he has presented us with a concise and precise work which confronts the difficult questions that face Catholics thinking about Islam. Do we worship the same God? What do Muslims really believe? What is the Koran? What do Muslims believe about Jesus and the Catholic faith? Are Muslims pious, pro life, pro family allies of Catholics or are they terrorists–intent on a holy war to conquer the West?

Spencer begins by answering Peter Kreeft’s open and “ecumenical” approach to Islam and is intent on showing not only the similarities between Islam and Christianity, but more importantly–the radical differences. His chapters walk us clearly through the big questions: Three Abrahamic Faiths? The Same God? The Same Jesus? Once he deals with the Biblical and doctrinal questions he goes on to examine Islamic teachings regarding justice and sexual ethics. The cherry on the top of this excellent book is the transcript of a witty and fast-paced live debate at Thomas More College between Spencer and Kreeft with the inimitable John Zmirak as moderator.

I was most interested in the doctrinal sections of the book. Hilaire Belloc reminds us that Islam is a Christian heresy. It grew up in Christian lands and promoted a false teaching based on a false Scripture to a false prophet. I knew about their denial of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ as God’s Son, but Spencer shows how the Muslims also have a deficient understanding of the human person. In their desire to protect the complete transcendence of God they deny free will to man and deny man’s creation in God’s image and the possibility that we are sons and daughters of God. The consequence of this ultimately pessimistic view of humanity is a sort of fatalism which allows cruelty and barbaric treatment of others because, according to their theology, no one has objective worth as a human being created in God’s image. A harsh conclusion is the possible result: One is either a Muslim or an infidel. Convert or die.

It should be pointed out that to convert to Islam does not mean what it means for Christians. For a Christian conversion means an engagement of the intellect and will in order to make an act of faith. To convert to Islam one only needs to recite the basic belief about Allah in Arabic. Intention of the heart does not matter. Intellect does not matter. Such a fatalistic view leads to the frightening reality of religion as God’s Robots.

While I was most interested in the theological aspect of Spencer’s book, I have to admit a prurient interest in the Islamic concepts of multiple wives, temporary marriage, sex slave wives and child brides. (all of which seem to be legitimate according to some Muslim commentators) Some of the quotations he includes from Islamic teachers sanctioning the capture of sex slaves as spoils of war, the continued legitimacy in Muslim countries of child brides and their implicit acceptance of birth control and abortion are chilling to read.

Spencer’s book is brief and comes across as a radical explanation of modern Islam. In the debate Kreeft points out that, like Protestantism, Islam is “all over the place” and that there is a huge range of different interpretations of the Koran and different expressions of Islam from country to country and from one school of interpretation to another. The form of Islam Spencer presents is extreme, and I came away from the book fearing that I was expected to judge all of Islam based on Spencer’s view rather as if a Muslim might be expected to get his impression of all Protestant Christians from the Westboro Baptist Church.

This is why the debate with Peter Kreeft at the end of the book was refreshing. We heard another side to the story, met a more nuanced Spencer and realized that the subject of Islam is vast and complicated, and that any responsibly religious person should try to take the trouble to learn from Spencer’s excellent book, but then seek to learn even more.

  • Thinkling

    CWR had a piece in the last year about another Islamic scholor, whose main point was that islam of the Koran, like Christianinty of Scriptures taken literally, is rife with contradictions, since their Holy Books both are self-contradictory if taken literally. Thus two Muslims of good will can hold incompatible versions of their faith, something that Catholics (in principle) need not worry about as they are protected by the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium, revealing the resolution of the apparent inconsistencies.

    This is why, for example, many Muslims, even of good will, were hesitant to speak out in condemnation of 9/11. There are Koranic justifications for such an action, and the would be critics know this. They have no Magisterium to moderate between those justifications and those who would condemn the attack based on other Koranic justifications.

    So the Spencer / Kreeft debate, while informative and edifying, at the end really is more of an assessment of which strains of Islam have more traction empirically. Key word empirically. They do not shed light on the intrinsic nature of Islam, other than to show implicitly that it is inherently contradictory. Both men outlined visions of Islam which are clearly true, yet they are at odds with each other.

    When seen with benefit of this open ended, non resolvable contradictory nature, a lot of modern issues which Islam touches upon suddenly make much more sense.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    In fact, there’s a relevant post on BBC news today…
    Forced marriages: School holidays prompt warning
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23639070
    ‘Teachers, doctors and airport staff need to be alert to the problem of forced marriages over the school holidays, the government has warned…’

    I found this book useful:
    111 Questions on Islam by Samir Khalil Samir S.J.
    http://www.ignatius.com/Products/OHQI-P/111-questions-on-islam.aspx

    Also, the debate you mention might be the one up on YouTube between Spencer and Kreeft (chaired by John Z at Thomas More College):
    Good Muslim/Bad Muslim
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtqCapeVRA

  • Mr. Spock

    When one steps back, one can see that Islam is a distorted mirror image of Roman Catholicism. RCC preaches peace, Islam preaches war. RCC has us as God’s children, Islam, has us as worthless trash. RCC: convert with love and tolerate, Islam convert with the sword or die. RCC: we have free will and intellect, Islam: we are robots.
    One of the few areas where the two religions converge is this: earthly government should be a theocracy, with the religion in question in charge, naturally.

  • Lydia

    Thanks for the review. I’m looking forward to reading it. I just finished Al Kresta’s “Dangers
    to the Faith: Recognizing Catholicism’s 21st-Century Opponents” http://j.mp/OSVKrestaDTF which has a section on Islam I found very informative. Robert Spencer’s book looks like the next step.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X