Islam and barbarism

So on 9/11 enraged Muslims have killed a U.S. ambassador and assaulted the Egyptian embassy. This morning brought news that similar groups of the professionally enraged have attempted the same in Yemen. And predictably, we are witnessing the same self-flagellating members of the ruling class here in the U.S. reminding us once more that "Islam is peaceful" and these are "extremists." Apparently, this is to prevent us rubes out here in flyover country from drawing the entirely logical connection between the deepest beliefs of these excitable young lads and their actions. We are supposed to believe, instead, that the same people who insist that women must be subject to FGM and the sartorial equivalent of the burlap sack, that you may convert to Islam but never away from it, that Bin Laden is a martyr rather than a murdering thug, and so on have such finely honed sensitivities (sensitivities which are, evidently, not dissimilar to those of a land mine) that we do well to keep from offending them with provocative films and free speech critical of Islam, its "prophet" and its "holy" book.

I'm all for acting like a civilized person and not deliberately sticking a finger in anyone else's eye. Why unnecessarily provoke the perpetually provoked? War is a dirty business best avoided when possible, etc. That being said, it is better to die for freedom than to live in slavery and sometimes all some people understand is the business end of a gun. With such people, treading lightly is seen as weakness rather than forbearance and begets more of the same.

Moreover, it seems to me that the sort of people doing these atrocities are doing them specifically as expressions of Islam. Not being an Islamic scholar, who am I to tell them they are wrong? Moreover, Islamic institutions, such as Al-Azhar University (located, not coincidentally, in the recently much more Muslim Brotherhood friendly confines of Cairo) which are presumably full of Islamic scholars are telling them they are correct. So who is the fool here? It's past time to stop telling ourselves pretty lies and recognize that the views of the embassy raiders and ambassador killers have become the mainstream of the Middle East. That may be a scary reality, but at least it has the benefit of being reality rather than hopeful wishing.

Eschatology and the Mission

Over the past decade or so, the American Church has spent enormous energy pursuing theological renewal in the areas of soteriology and ecclesiology. Movements like the emerging/Emergent church have challenged traditional notions of what it means to "do church" and to be the church in a postmodern culture. They have also brought renewed clarity to our understanding of the Gospel, both what it is and isn't. Through movements like the Gospel Coalition, we are now discussing issues like the place of what is rather inelegantly labeled "social justice" in our gospel proclamation. These debates are all healthy and contribute, I think, to the renewal of the Church.

I think it is time for a renewal in eschatology as well. Among many of my brethren, the study of the last things is regarded as either the province of weirdos with charts or among the "things indifferent," about which Christians may disagree but which really don't matter. But in the New Testament, it is the in eschatological passages in which we most often find exhortation toward both mission and personal spiritual renewal. And so, as we approach the time when there are fewer American missionaries than there once were (as many are now old and starting to retire), I believe it is time once again to remind people of the Bible's great teaching about the last things and motivate a new generation to sanctify themselves and complete the task of world evangelization.

I believe it is simply true that:

• If we don't really believe in Hell as the Bible teaches, then no one will sacrifice the comforts of home to make sure people they've never met don't wind up going there.
• If we don't really believe in the coming of both King Jesus and His Kingdom, then no one will be willing to suffer martyrdom to reach the Muslim world (which is most likely the price that will have to be paid to do so). 
• If we don't really believe that Jesus could return today, then no one will ever develop any sense of urgency about repenting of their sin and reaching their neighbors with the Gospel.
• If we don't really believe in the Tribulation and God's wrath, then we will never warn anyone about it or share with them the Way of escape.

And that, I believe is the problem. Many of us affirm these things, but we don't really believe them enough to allow their truth to transform our day-to-day lives. So we sleep in comfort as the world quite literally goes to Hell.

Think dark

I think what we may be witnessing is the setting of the stage for a grand scale "clash of civilizations," (to borrow Samuel Huntington's phrase), in which the rising Islamic world will be pitted against the West. Consider the following:

1. Turkey is Islamifying under Erdogan. No longer an ally, even though still nominally a NATO member, Turkey's culture is going away from Ataturk and toward Islamification.
2. Iran crushed the opposition moved that briefly flowered in 2009 in protest against the rigged election of Ahmadinejad.
   
3. Afghanistan does not appear to be moving toward Western values, and we are in negotiations for a withdrawal which allows us to leave and the Taliban to have some role in a post-American state.
4. Iraq is fragile, and will probably experience revolution after we leave in December of this year.
   
5. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain to crush opposition forces there and may not ever leave. After all, what can tiny Bahrain do if the Saudis stay?
6. Libya is aflame, but the rebels are most likely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, so what replaces Qaddafi will probably be more Islamist, not less.
   
7. Egypt will rid itself of Mubarak, but will probably find a replacement not among the country's tiny population of secular democrats, but from the Brotherhood. Ditto Tunisia.

What does all this mean? It means that, the revolutions now sweeping the Islamic Middle East will likely produce Islamization, not secular democracies. It means that the direction of that part of the world is toward radicalism and away from peace. It means that American blood and treasure have been and are being sacrificed in a way that enables this process to proceed faster. And it means, finally, that within a few years, we will see the re-emergence of a de facto Islamic Caliphate, stretching from the border of China all the way across North Africa and dedicated to the destruction or submission of the West.

And while that idea is perhaps too scary or too politically incorrect to contemplate, it will nevertheless be the reality facing us in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile Japan is weak, we are broke, and Europe itself is being overtaken by Muslim immigrants. The Chinese are rising in the East and their military might is paid for by the interest on American borrowing. India is strengthening and democratic, and most importantly populous, but still relatively weaker than China.

The world is about to become a darker, more frightening place.

If ever you were inclined to pray and seek the Lord's favor, now is a good time.

Why Islamism Will Spread and Grow

My fellow Americans probably don't want to hear this, but the future world will contain more Islamist governments than the world today. If you have a hard time believing this, consider where we are today:

1. Turkey: The Erdogan government in Turkey is moving rapidly in an Islamist direction and as quickly as it dares away from Ataturk style government. Journalists and bloggers are being jailed as I writes this for being critical of the government. The Turkish army and its generals, the traditional protectors of Turkish democracy and separation of mosque and state, were neutered last year with the suppression of Western-leaning generals. Turkey is already tottering. Any dreams of it become a more European type nation are fading fast and likely to fail.
   
2. Syria: Already the pro-Islamist puppet of Iran.
3. Iran: 'Nuff said.
4. Lebanon: Hezbollah has been democratically elected to power. The Cedar Revolution is dead.
5. Iraq: Democratic government minus democratic institutions favors the organized and the willful. Islamists don't rule there yet, but when Uncle Sam pulls out the last of the troops, that will probably result, and probably through the time-honored tradition of "one man, one vote, one time."
   
6. Afghanistan: The Karzai government will accommodate itself to the Taliban or some similar faction at some point in the future. American's patience will eventually run thin and then we will be back where we started.
7. Gaza: Hamas already rules there.
   
8. Pakistan: Millions of Pakistanis cheered the murder of a pro-Western, anti-sharia politician. Does that tell you which way the wind is blowing?
9. Sudan: South Sudan has voted to secede. Assuming that separation actually comes, the Khartoum government will now be free from any pressures to moderate their already Islamist rule for the sake of minorities in the country.
   
10. Egypt: 1/3 of the world's Arabs dwell in Egypt. She is the only Arab nation with sufficient population and military strength to pose a real, existential threat to Israel, our ally. Revolution has come, at last, yet Mubarak eliminated all the organized, democratic, pro-Western activists over his 30-year reign. Guess who that leaves? Muslim Brotherhood, get ready to take your bow come September, for luck favors the prepared.

Why is this happening? Because once again, the direction of change within the Islamic world is back to a more faithful version of Islam, one more consonant with the teaching of the Koran and the hadith, one which is all-encompassing and swallows religion, politics, diplomacy, and life within its gaping maw. That is what the Islamist are selling and they have lots of willing buyers. The advance of Islamist theology and the military jihad which will come and increase in its wake is the central challenge we will face as Westerners in the 21st century.

How will we respond?

Will it be with rockets, bombs and bullets? With evangelism? With accommodation and appeasement? With submission? Who knows but God Himself. What I do know is that we must not deny the challenge, for denial will not reduce it or remove it. Moreover, as Christians, who believe that all humans are made in God's image and loved by Him, we must find a way to draw the line between protecting ourselves from destruction, and showing love to our enemies.

Where, I wonder, is that line?

Why the "Islamic Reformation" Won't Happen

I have been cheered a good bit by the protests against the autocrats which are now raging in Egypt and seem to be spreading through the Middle East generally. It's possible that old neo-con, George Bush, was right that liberty really is the desire of every human heart, and that freedom in South Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is inspiring a desire for something similar in other places as well. It's possible that Tunisia is the first domino, to be followed by the rest of the Middle East, everyone will open their societies, their cultures, and their religious beliefs to challenges from the outside world and Islam will be replaced with other, more peaceful religious beliefs or at least with a more moderate, peaceful version of itself. It's possible that the radicals and terrorists then become an embarrassment rather than a model of faithfulness. But I don't think any of this is very likely to occur.

Let me speak first about the revolutions now occurring: If there is any place less well stocked than the Middle East with classically liberal people (i.e., free markets, separate of mosque/state, limited government), I don't know where it would be. And the organized, the willful, and the bloodthirsty are usually those who come out on top during a revolution. Normally speaking, that means the various Islamist groups, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, or Lebanese Hezbollah, Gaza's Hamas, etc. So there's a high probability that even if revolution comes and the House of Saud, Mubarak, Baby Assad, Qadaffi, the Iranian mullahs, and even King Abdullah are overthrown, whoever replaces them might actually be worse. (I know, what could be worse than the Iranian mullahs? But such people do exist and want power bad enough to kill for it). So reformation probably isn't coming through some sort of "Cairo Spring" in 2011 a la Eastern Europe in 1989. We're probably looking more like either Tienanmen Square (if the army and police shoot the protesters) or at best, the March 1917 revolution that brought Kerensky to power before he got killed by Lenin in Red October.

Reformation also probably won't come through the realm of theology. Though there were a lot of causes bringing about the Protestant Reformation (including the flood of biblical manuscripts that came West after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks), the most major reason was theological: A plausible (I would say virtually airtight) case was made by the Reformers that Rome's teaching and practice had strayed from the Bible's teaching. Yet it is virtually impossible to do this within Islam, because the radical, Islamist version of the faith now overtaking the Islamic world's seminaries and mosques is the version presented in the Koran. There is no case to be made for a moderate, non-violent Islam, because it isn't in there to find. Or to say it another way: There won't be an Islamic Reformation in the future, because it already happened--and the moderates lost.

Why Islamism Will Not Be Defeated

In my last post, I mentioned three possible alternative futures given the rise of political Islam (Islamism), of which the first is that Islamism is crushingly defeated and therefore goes quiet. This is possible, in that the world's mightiest powers are all non-Islamic: The U.S., Europe, India, China, Russia, Japan, Israel, and indeed most of the world does not conduct its prayers at a mosque, radical or otherwise. And Islam is strong in shame/face based cultures, so a massive defeat would result in a significant quieting and perhaps even a total repudiation of the Islamist idea. But it isn't gonna happen. Here's why:

1. It is in the interest of many of the world's great powers that Islamists prosper. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is generally understood that we live in a unipolar world, a situation which is not very likely to change any time soon, as none of the potential contenders have anything like the strength required. Yet many of the nations of the world are not our friends and reason that if they cannot raise their own power to match, then at the very least they can try to tear a chunk off of ours. Thus Russia assists the Iranians with building nuclear reactors and the nations of the Islamic world (and probably China and Russia, if I had to guess) not-so-covertly funnel money to terrorist organizations abroad while they imprison them at home.
2. We aren't committed to defeating Islamism. Oh sure, we want to deny Al-Qaeda and like-minded organizations place to plot and train for jihad against us. But we don't want to engage on all of the levels of conflict to defeat a committed, ideological enemy. Don't believe me? Let me present Exhibit A: The street protests in Iran against Ahmadinejad following his rigged re-election in 2009. Pro-democracy, anti-Islamist demonstrators filled the country, begging for the President to stand with them. What did they get? Bubkus. Or consider Exhibit B: Egypt is aflame right now with anti-Islamist, pro-democracy protesters. What did Secretary of State Clinton say? “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.” Seriously? This is the best we can do? I thought progressives believed in freedom. Not anymore, apparently.
   
3. The non-Islamist world is in denial about its nature. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, it's also the state of policy in Europe, the US, and the rest of the non-Islamic world. We continue to believe and act, as a culture, as if there is a peaceful, moderate Islam which will sweep to power any day now. Yet while it is obviously true that most Muslims are peaceful and moderate, it is not true that they will overwhelm the Islamists. The energy, momentum, and don't forget, guns and willingness to use them are all running the other way. So it is moderate Islam which will be silenced and the Islamist version which will be advanced, and comforting nostrums about the "religion of peace" will avail us nothing. It is past time for us to come to grips with the fact that if we want moderate Islam to flourish, it will do so only after the death of the Islamist version, and that this is going to require a whole lot more arranged meetings between the terrorists and Allah, courtesy of the 10th Mountain Division, 3rd Armored, and 82nd Airborne.
   

The Rise of Islamism

Political Islam (or Islamism, if you prefer) was a severely constrained ideology prior to World War II. What kept it from rising was the presence of the great empires. The Ottomans ruled Turkey and much of the Middle East in their mostly benevolent, albeit decadent, fashion. The British and the French empires divided Islamic North Africa (along with the rest of that continent), and the Dutch ruled the Indies (what became Indonesia). The Brits also ruled India, and even made one of history's ill-fated attempts to rule Afghanistan. Back in Europe, the Habsburgs kept Islam from spreading West, having checked the Turks at Vienna's gates back in 1453, and fighting numerous skirmishes since.

At the close of World War I, the Habsburg's Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved and a number of independent states formed from it. The Ottoman Empire was likewise broken up and divided between the British and French. Then came the devastation of World War II. Japan had overrun the Indies, separating them from Dutch control for long years, while Holland's occupation by Germany had left her unable rise again as a world colonial power. Britain and France both stood in shambles, so it was not long before their empires were broken up from sheer inability to hold them together. Independence came quickly for a number of Middle Eastern states and also for India, which was divided and became Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. (The Brits had, of course, long since given up on Afghanistan).

Independence naturally brought chaos, and in much of the formerly colonized world, autocracies. And the central problem for any dictator is how to retain his hold on power. Since he is a tyrant, there is no end to the plots to overthrow him or to the legitimate reasons for doing so. Yet no dictator wants to end up the next Ceausescu. If they have to lose power, the Gorbachev gambit is much to be preferred. But the goal, of course, is not to lose power at all, since the outcome once that happens isn't exactly guaranteed.

But where to find legitimacy when you came to power illegitimately? Fortunately for many of these men, their own (at least nominal) faith, provides a tool which comes readily to hand. That is, the teachings of the Koran don't point a person merely toward moral improvement or the growth of one's individual relationship with God; it teaches that good Muslims should seek the spread of Islam over the entire world, by any means necessary, so that all the world will live in submission to Allah. Moreover, the Koran provides within its text the laws necessary for the establishment of the global theocratic state which is its goal. These things gave the otherwise illegitimate tyrant something like the ancient idea of divine right: They were rulers according to the will of Allah, given power so that submission to Allah might spread worldwide.

Most of these men probably had little or no desire to actually carry out these grand plans. They knew it was the 3rd World equivalent of Moynihan's "boob bait for bubbas," and besides, the infidels provided money (through oil) that provided access to all their favorite sins of the flesh, the eyes, and the pride of life.

That changed with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots. Suddenly, there were men who took seriously the bits about dying in glorious martydom, fighting jihad against the infidel, re-establishing the Caliphate (theocratic rule by successors of Muhammed), and spreading Islam worldwide, by violence if necessary. These men were a threat. Their violence could lead to revolution and the Ceausescu ending the dictators most want to avoid. But the rulers had a card to play-plenty of money. So they played it, giving just enough funding to their wild-eyed brethren to keep them focused on the infidels, but not so much that they lost plausible deniability with the West and provoked a real retaliation thereby.

This is pretty much the situation as it stands today. But it seems unlikely to me that this situation will persist in the long-term. Instead, I think we are faced with one of three possible alternative futures:

1. The Islamists are utterly defeated, and political Islam goes quiet.
2. An Islamic reformation takes place, changing the nature of Islamic belief, such that violence is discredited.
3. Islamists overthrow governments, and political Islam spreads.
   

I don't think all of these are likely futures, merely possible. But I'll explore each of these options in posts to come. Stay tuned...

Welcoming Ramadan

Today is the start of Ramadan, the Islamic month of prayer and fasting. It is also traditionally known within Islam as the month for visions. Over the last few years, in God's mercy, it has also been the time during which Muslims have had visions of Jesus and become Christians. I have more than one former Muslim friend who came to Christ in precisely this way, and have heard many reports out of the Muslim world that indicate that this is far from unusual. In fact, it may well be the normal means that God is using to draw Muslims to Himself in those places where more traditional forms of evangelism are virtually impossible.

I have two thoughts about this: First, these things are a magnificent testimony of God's grace to those who hate Him. The Islamic world is the most hardened stronghold of the Enemy that remains in the world. The world's animists, Buddhists, Hindus, and even secularists are all being relatively easily reached (by comparison), so God is using extraordinary means. Praise Him for that! My second thought is that the coming of Ramadan each year represents a great annual opportunity to pray with the Muslim world for the redemption of the Muslim world. Why not do something really extremist and pray for the men of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, & the Muslim Brotherhood to find the true God through faith in Jesus Christ? Anybody want to join me in prayer this month (until 9/11)?

Here's a good verse to pray, for those so inclined:

I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I.' ~ Isaiah 65:1

What's at Stake in Aghanistan

It is to the everlasting shame of the American Left that they can become incensed enough about domestic violence against women here in the West to artificially inflate the reality of it, yet remain silent about the rampant and systemic abuse (including FGM), mistreatment, rape, flogging, and second-class citizenship (at best!) of their sisters in the Islamic world. I'd like to think that it's their multi-culti "different strokes for different folks" worldview which blinds them to their plight rather than racism against brown women, yet the silence of the Gloria Steinems and Maureen Dowds of the world is pretty deafening (to say nothing of their European cousins, who ran Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Holland even though she was a Dutch MP at the time).

So I was greatly cheered by Time magazine's upcoming, August 9, 2010 cover. The woman in the picture is named Aisha (the same as Mohammed's 9-year-old "wife"), and she was sentenced by the Taliban to have her nose and ears cut off for the "crime" of fleeing her in-laws' abuse. As the photo makes clear, this is what is at stake in Afghanistan-the return of people who think that this photo represents divine justice. So credit where it's due: Kudos to Time for running a worthy story about what we're really trying to accomplish in The Long War.

Here's Jim Geraghty, from his excellent Morning Jolt, who expresses my thoughts on the matter pretty succinctly:

I see that image and think, "Tell me we've killed a lot of these guys. Tell me we're going to kill a lot of Taliban today, and a lot of Taliban tomorrow, and a lot more before we leave, even if we don't leave this country in the state we originally desired." I realize that the problem in Afghanistan is not a lack of firepower or enemy casualties and that the difficulties there are complicated by a mess of local corruption, shifting tribal alliances, consistent suspicions of Pakistani assistance, and some of the toughest terrain on this earth. But clearly the foundation for a better tomorrow for all of our children is built upon a high stack of Taliban corpses. I don't know if God will look into the eyes of a man who disfigures a woman like that and forgive him; I just know that we ought to help arrange that meeting as quickly as possible.

The de-Westernization of the Middle East

Like many people here in the US, post-911 I have been compelled to take more interest in the rise of the more fundamentalist currents within Islam. After all, from a national security perspective, it seems that people from formerly remote corners of the map are determined to make war upon us. Further, from a Christian perspective, fundamentalist Islam is rising in precisely those places (sometimes called the 10/40 Window) where the Gospel has spread least. Along the way, as I have continued to study and read, one of the things which has consistently struck me is the rate at which the Middle East (and the larger Islamic world generally) are de-Westernizing. It seems that freedom from colonial rule and self-determination has not produced the pro-Western, liberalizing, more secular modern states of Western government's hopes, but the reverse. The power vacuum left by the departure of colonial governments was quickly filled by corrupt autocrats that left their people suffering and in search of something greater to which to devote their lives. They are increasingly finding it in their faith, albeit in a form which is hostile to the West and the westernizing currents which used to flow through these countries.

I cannot do better in illustrating this trend than the folks at Pajamas Media, with their photos of the graduating classes from the University of Cairo.

This is the class of 1959. Notice that there are darn few women, but those who are present are wearing Western style dresses and none are covered or veiled in any way:

Here's the class of 1978. Notice that here there's an abundance of women, only now not just in dresses or skirts, but pants(!). Again, none of the women are covered or veiled.

By 1995, the situation has changed dramatically. Women seem to be present in virtually equal numbers with men, yet veils and coverings are now present in good numbers. About 1/3 of the women are covered, with others not.
By 2004, it's as if a curtain has been dropped on the female students. The composition of the student body (male/female) is roughly the same as in 1995, but now there are no uncovered women. Note too that in contrast to the women of '78 and even the women of '95, the women of 2004 has lost their right to bare arms (yes, I know, bad pun, but it illustrates a serious point).

It seems to me that if the West (and most especially the United States) is to have any hope of being at peace with the Islamic world, then we are going to have to come up with a better strategy than whatever we're doing at present. The tide of radicalization is clearly running against us. Moreover, while military force must be an option at all times (and especially where specific fundamentalist groups threaten), it cannot be the only one. Our long-term national survival may well depend on replacing the theology which gives Islamic fundamentalism its rise. If that is true, then what, I wonder, are Washington, Brussels, and London prepared to do to bring that about?