Why Is Islam at War With the West?

-By Gary Krasner

Indeed, why are there so many acts of terrorism by Muslims today? If there can be one central reason, I think it was that Judeo-Christianity was better able to reform and conform to political modernity of secular government and freedom of conscience, based on a less specific code of conduct than that of Islam.

The Catholic Church, for example, does not require Catholics to cite specific tenets to do or not do something. Indeed, the Church itself has stated in doctrine—-which is „tenets‰—-that it doesn’t have to specifically oppose or endorse something in order for a Catholic to oppose or endorse that something—-if it’s based upon his Moral Conscience. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine, for example, for a Catholic to conclude that it‚s wrong to kick a dog or surf the internet. Or he is being a good Christian by kicking a dog or surfing the internet. Either way, no specific doctrine is required.

As instructed in Catholic Doctrine, in Dignitas Humanae, Pope Paul VI wrote in 1965: “It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end.” More recently, Pope John Paul II wrote on October 11, 1992: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church‚s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church‚s Magisterium. I declare it to be A SURE NORM FOR TEACHING THE FAITH, and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” [On matters of conscience, refer to CCC 1776, 1777 & 1782]

“Conscience” is considered sacred and must be obeyed, according to the Catechism and numerous encyclicals, especially by the Fourth Lateran Council, which stated that the law of God is essentially the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience—-which is God speaking to us. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience. “Whatever is done in opposition to conscience is conducive to damnation.”

Left-wing protesters, including the “occupy” gangs, owe a degree of their rights to this doctrine, and to St. Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed from the early teachings of St. Augustine as he stated in Summa Theologica, “A law that deflects from the law of nature is unjust and is no longer a law but a perversion.” For centuries, both Catholic doctrine and noted religious scholars of all faiths have noted that there is in fact, no obligation to obey an unjust law, but instead, there is a duty to fight against it.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. agreed: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

Moral conscience is not an entitlement for Catholics, or a select few, but rather a religious right for all, ordained by God. Indeed, if Christianity was anything, it was a mission to include everyone of all religions in the rights of man, and to the grace of God. So sacred is this right that the Catechism of the Catholic Church professes conscience to be the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ” (CCC 1778).

This is in sharp contrast to Islam. Unlike the Bible and it’s more interpretative religions (Judaism and Christianity), the Qur’an is considered LITERALLY, the direct SPOKEN word of God, transcribed by Mohammed. That is why Islam˜which is an integration of specific religious, social, legal, economic, political and even personal hygienic laws˜must be accepted in all its literal meanings. Where there is conflict or ambiguity, the Doctrine of Abrogation prevails. (i.e. The earlier peaceful verses are abrogated.)

Qur’anic literalism has remained mainstream in Islamic jurisprudence today codified and enforced through classical Sharia (the law of Islam). Experts in national security have noted that Qur’anic references to Islamic supremacy above all other religions are among the causes of the pressing problems we face today with terrorism.

Thus, “kill the non-Muslim wherever you find them”, “do not take non-Muslims as friends”, are all specific enough, and those who violate it can be shamed by the literalists for doing so. Or be killed. Apostasy is a death-penalty offense, don’t forget. It’s the law of the land in many of the 52 Muslim nations.

But the US is not much better, at least when it comes to providing special accommodations to Muslims. For example, Muslims in the armed forces can obtain conscientious objection status if deployed to the middle east or any place where US forces are engaged in combat with Islamic jihadists. Such an individual, by definition, is an Islamist literalist, following the Qur’anic commandment proscribing the killing of fellow Muslims. Ironic, considering every violent jihadist whom our forces are fighting against is philosophically Islamist.

And it is even more ironic, when you consider that we allow service members—-whose religion expressly forbids acts of conscience and holds them to the literal meaning of the text in the Qur’an—-the right of dissent through conscience, by way of opting out of combat roles. And we don’t allow that for members of any other religion. To be granted CO status, one must be opposed to the concept of killing another human being. Not just another human who’s affiliated with your religion. More irony there.

As anyone can deduce, there is no Martin Luther King if Islam. There cannot be. All must submit to Islam as it is written it Qur’anic text. That is the law and the law must be obeyed. As a Muslim, King would have been executed, as many thousands have been, for following conscience and expressing dissent.

But regardless of the politics, the point is that we know exactly why Muslims are at war against all non-Muslims everywhere. Their religion takes an official position on it. If it is commonplace for the Research Academy at Cairo‚s al-Azhar University˜the seat of Sunni learning for over a millennium˜to instruct Muslims on the proper use, or non-use, of virtually every modern convenience no matter how mundane, from use of a telephone to flying in a plane, it sure as hell instructs them on dealing with non-Muslims—-they must kill them or treat them as Dhimis. Or where they are religious minorities, bide their time while sabotaging the majority’s way of life.

By contrast, the Catholic Church doesn’t approach anywhere near Islam’s level of specificity and comprehensiveness in its positions relating to politics, economics, law, let alone using devises of modern technology. Despite that, we still scrutinize and obsess over Vatican policies as if they are as theologically relevant as Islam’s. And that is why our politically correct avoidance in drawing the obvious causal nexus from Islamic doctrine to terrorism is strategically wrong, and criminally negligent.

Copyright Publius Forum 2001