Thursday, January 03, 2008

No alliance with Muslims

Because of his trust in God, Gideon is able to defeat a vastly superior number of Midianites with only 300 warriors (Judges 6-8)

I want to address a certain attitude that I have seen among some Catholics in the popular conservative wing of the Church regarding Islam and Secularism. This is the notion that though Secularism and Islam are both ideologies opposed to the Church, we have much more in common with the Muslims, and therefore we ought to "unite" with Islam in combating Secular Humanism (I capitalize it because, like Islam and Catholicism, Secular Humanism is a religion). The argument usually put forth is that Islam and Catholicism are both monotheistic and have fixed moral values. Therefore, we are natural allies against Secular Humanism, which regards no deity and has no fixed moral values. Peter Kreeft wrote a book promoting such an alliance, and I have heard it on Catholic radio as well. Even certain Vatican statements seems to imply that such a moral alliance is ddesirable


As an example of this view, listen to this quote from author William Cinfici, found in his commentary on Chesterton's Lepanto (Ignatius Press, 2004):

While Catholics and Protestants are finding themselves as allies trying to stem the degeneration of the West against a new Muslim aggression, they may ultimately have to forge and alliance with the Muslim world against the degeneration of the West (pg. 75).

So, in Cinfini's view, instead of being opposed to Muslim aggression, we ought to ally with Muslims in order to stop the degeneration of our own society. Islam, in this view, is a natural ally against Secularism because both of our peoples are "religious."

I say poppycock! This is an insane view, and those who promote it are guilty of seeing things as men see, not as God sees. The Church does not need allies. The Church stands alone. If we were a merely human, political institution, this would seem to be arrogance; but the promise of the Church's indefectability comes not from political consensus or social trends, but from her Divine Founder. Now, two arguments that refute this "Muslim-alliance" idea.

First: the fact that Muslims have "values" and "morality" is no ground for unity at all. So they have values? So what!? The issue is not whether or not someone has values, but rather what kind of values they have. Even the Nazis and the Communists had morality, but the wrong kind of morality. It is not enough to just have morality if it is Nazi morality. And Muslim "morality" is not the type of morality we want to ally with.

Second: God's word says: What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:15). Let's see what Scripture says about allying with powers antagonistic to the Gospel.

First, look at the story of King Asa of Judah from 2 Chronicles 14:9-16:14. This story recounts two different attitudes towards meeting one's enemies. Notice which is condemned and which is condoned:

Zerah the Ethiopian came out against [Judah] with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mareshah. And Asa went out to meet him...and Asa cried to the Lord his God, "O Lord, there is none like You to help, between the mighty and the weak. Help us, O Lord our God, for we rely on You, and in Your name we have come against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God, let not man prevail against You." So the Lord defeated the Ethiopian before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled...for they were broken before the Lord and His army (2 Chr. 14:9-13).

See how the Lord delivered Asa in his time of trouble? But let's see what happens later in his reign when Asa begins to lose faith:

In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might permit no one to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. Then Asa took silver and gold from the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king's house, and sent them to Benhadad, king of Syria, who dwelt in Damascus, saying, "Let there be a league between me and you..behold, I am sending you silver and gold; go, break your league with Baasha king of Israel, that they may withdraw from me." And Benhadad listened to King Asa, and sent the commanders of his armies against the cities of Israel...

At that time, Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him, [this part is important!], "Because you relied on the king of Syria, and did not rely on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Syria has escaped you. Were not the Ethiopians and the Libyans a huge army with exceedingly many chariots and horsemen? Yet because you relied on the Lord, he gave them into your hand...You have done foolishly in this; for from now on you will have wars (2 Chr. 16:1-4,7-9).

And how did Asa end his days? In sstubbornnessand bad faith:

In the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe; yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign (2 Chr. 16:11-13).

What a pathetic end for a king who initially had such great promise and who had trusted the Lord to deliver him! It was only when he put his trust in other princes that he began to have problems. Now let's look at another story, this time regarding King Ahaz of Judah, who was attacked by the kings of Syria and Israel:

Therefore the Lord his God gave [Ahaz] into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people and brought them to Damascus. He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel, who defeated him with a great slaughter (2 Chr. 28:5).

What did Ahaz do when beset with enemies all around? Did he call on God, as Asa had once done against the Ethiopians and Libyans? Nope; he relied on men:

At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help...[but] Tigleth-Pileser king of Assyria came against him, and afflicted him instead of strengthening him. For Ahaz took from the house of the Lord and the house of the king and of the princes and gave tribute to the king of Assyria, but it did not help him. In the time of his distress he became yet more faithless to the Lord-this same King Ahaz (2 Chr. 28:16,20-22).

When the devil presses against the Church from the left, we do not ally with another devil on the right! To say we ought to ally with Muslims against Secularism is like allying with Egypt against Babylon or Syria against Edom. It simply ought not to be done. Instead, let us use the example of faithful Gideon, to whom the Lord said, "The Lord is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Judg. 6:13), and who, because of his faith in God, defeated a tremendously massive force of Midianites with only 300 men. Forget the admonitions of men like Kreeft and Cinfini who say we need to make an alliance with the worhsipers of the false-god Allah (and he is a false god). Let us remember the admonition of the Psalmist:

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help...happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God who made heaven and earth...It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in princes (Ps. 118:8-9, 146:3, 5).

Related: Mundabor: The First, Second and Third Enemy is Islam

8 comments:

Maurus said...

Your quote from the Psalms tells it all. As I've been saying the same about the princes of our Church. We are a flock about to be sold for slaughter.

jon said...

You are right, Unam: We would be remiss in our duties as Christians to forget the profound sufferings of the of Christians of yesteryear at the hands of Muslims if we would attempt a first-ever (after nearly 1,400 years!) 'reconciliation' with the followers of the degenerate Mohammed. Any time I hear of said 'reconciliation', I am forced to reflect upon the poem:


"Sonnet on the Massacre of the Christians in Bulgaria


CHRIST, dost Thou live indeed? or are Thy bones
Still straightened in their rock-hewn sepulchre?
And was Thy Rising only dreamed by Her
Whose love of Thee for all her sin atones?

For here the air is horrid with men’s groans,
The priests who call upon Thy name are slain,
Dost Thou not hear the bitter wail of pain
From those whose children lie upon the stones?

Come down, O Son of God! incestuous gloom
Curtains the land, and through the starless night
Over Thy Cross the Crescent moon I see!

If Thou in very truth didst burst the tomb
Come down, O Son of Man! and show Thy might,
Lest Mahomet be crowned instead of Thee!"

-Oscar Wilde, 1881

May Our Lady and her seneschal, Michael the Archangel, be our defense!

Anselm said...

Santiago Matamoros,
ora pro nobis.

Lynne said...

I'm hoping that since 9/11/2001 Dr Kreeft no longer waxes so eloquently about Islam. Other than that point I enjoy reading and listening to him.

Islam is a heresy and an especially dangerous one to boot...

BONIFACE said...

Lynne-

Unfortunately, Dr. Kreeft's comments were at least a year or two post-9/11...I can't remember the name of the title, but he had a whole book about how the monotheistic religions all have to unite to combat secularism. Blahh...

Sean said...

Islam is satanic and antichrist. I would rather cosy up to something merely erroneous such as Hinduism.

Future marine said...

If you read the Koran,(which I have to make myself a better defender of the faith, it specifically says that Christians and Jews will go to hell. It goes on describing the exact torments they will suffer.( Not!) If we were to ally with them they would fight for us, then stab us in the back. Hows this for a joke: There is a ten dollar bill at the base of a post. 3 miles north is the Easter bunny. 4 miles west is the tooth fairy. 5 miles south is a moderate Muslim. 20 miles east is a radical Muslim. Which one gets there first? Answer, the radical Islamic. All the others are mythical creatures.

Karl said...

I'm afraid Kreeft still rants on about the great muslims as ever before. He scandalised me a bit in a recent discussion with Robert Spencer (you can find it on youtube).

He actually claims that the origin of Islam MIGHT be of divine revelation. Spencer, clearly upset, interrupts and passionately reiterates the actual encounter of Mohammed with the spirit in the cave. How Mohammed goes back to his wife, shaking and disturbed, and claims he must be attacked by demons. Spencer then asks something like this: "Is this something we recognise as a divine revelation from God?" Kreeft then, almost gleefully, answers that it reminds him of Old Testament encounters with God (wrestling with the angel of God, etc).

The reason it was and is so shocking to me, is that Kreeft is otherwise such an orthodox and beautiful man, and then he presents these horrible, horrible things. I think it is because he is, despite for all its faults, loyal to all (!) of the Magisterium. He gladly goes to the CCC, treating it as infallible and obvious, and quotes how Christians and Muslims worship the same God. He gladly calls modern Jews our spiritual fathers, and so on.