Catholic Church Position Paper and Thoughts on Islam

Catholic Answers, the largest U.S.-based Catholic advocacy group run by the laity (as opposed to a part of the Church--or a church--itself) just issued its Voters Guide for Serious Catholics. In general, the document's neither revolutionary nor radical--the five "non-negotiable" positions (on abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage) are both unsurprising and probably unpersuasive to non-Catholics or non-conservative Catholics.

I've always been impressed by Catholic Answers' issue briefs. For example, their summary of the "just war" doctrine (formulated and refined mostly by Catholics) is both simple and supported by Bible and Catechism citations. And I strongly recommend their analysis of the relationship between Islam and violence, called Endless Jihad. Relying on scholars such as Bernard Lewis, the paper shows that separation between mosque and state is unknown and unimaginable in Islam. See Koran 2:193 ("And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."); id. 9.5 ("slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush"). This belief has consequences, as CA explains:

First, it means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply is God's government, then no other governments can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam--the "house of Islam" or "house of submission" to God--and the Dar al-Harb, or "house of war"--those who are at war with God.

Second, it means that Muslims have believed themselves to have a "manifest destiny." Since God must win in the end, the Dar al-Harb must be brought under the control of Muslim government and made part of the Dar al-Islam.

Third, since the Dar al-Harb by its nature is at war with God, it is unlikely that it will submit to God without a fight. Individual groups might be convinced to lay down their arms and join the Muslim community by various forms of pressure--economic or military--that fall short of war. In history some groups have become Muslim in this way, either fearing Muslim conquest, desiring Muslim military aid against their own enemies, or aspiring to good trade relations with the Muslim world. But many peoples would rather fight than switch. This has been particularly true of Christians, who have put up more resistance to the Muslim advance than have pagan and animistic tribes.

Because of the need to expand God's dominion by wars of conquest, Islam's ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for God's community. This duty is known as jihad (Arabic, "struggle, fight"). Although it is binding on all Muslims, it has been particularly incumbent on those on the edges of the Muslim world, where there was room for expansion. Only by continual jihad could the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to God be fulfilled.. . .

A fourth and final consequence of Islam's view of itself as a theocracy is that in theory all Muslims should not only form one religious community but should be subject to one government as well--God's government, a kind of Muslim superstate.

The language of the Koran is clear, and few of the faithful dispute the doctrinal implications.

Which brings us to liberals. Passionately secular, many lefties now defend Islam. Why? A contrarian churlishness concerning conservatives, I suspect. But as Monty Python proved, naysaying isn't enough.

Over the next few weeks, I'll contrast the words of the Koran and commentaries with unsupported wishful thinking from those who minimize Islam's threat.