The Kingdom Come

As we know, the media often portrays Muslim or Islamic extremists as a different and minority group within the larger religion of Islam. We are told that most Muslims aren't terrorists and don't want to harm other people. We are told that "Islam is a religion of peace". And there is some truth to at least one part of these claims; most Muslims aren't terrorists, otherwise the situation would be worse. So, then why does a group of Muslims turn to terrorism? Are they merely taking an extreme, literal interpretation of the Koran?

Then, when we think of Christian extremism, is it groups like the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones sect or other such groups? Or is it more accurate to consider groups like the Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites as the comparison to the so-called Islamic extremists. After all, the ones that are labeled extremists are those who take the actual text the most literal -- and with Islam that is the terrorists and with Christianity that is the Amish/Quakers/Mennonites and such. The cults, like the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones sect and such do not/did not take the Bible literally but rather ignored the Bible for the teachings of their cult leader. So, when comparing Christian extremists with Muslim extremists, we must consider our defining point as those groups within each religion that take the text very literally.

The Amish/Quakers/Mennonites could be considered extremists because they take the following Christian principles very literally and apply them practically.

CHRISTIAN EXTREMISM

1. Modest living
2. Communal living
3. Passiveness
4. Reclusion from the world

The Muslim terrorists could be considered extremists because they take the following Muslim principles very literally and apply them practically.

ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

1. Dominance
2. Disaffection/Hostility
3. Intolerance
4. Supersession

These principles, Christian or Muslim embody a very strict reading of each of the sacred texts of those religions. Further, historically and culturally speaking, whenever groups from those religions have appealed for a return to the "fundamentals" of the faith, it has been these principles that have always come to the forefront of that appeal. So, in short, a more literal adherence of Christianity will always bring a person more in line with the 4 main principles outlined above under Christian Extremism whereas a more literal adherence of Islam will always bring a person more in line with the 4 main principles outlined above under Islamic Extremism.

Perhaps someone will object and say these aren't accurate comparisons and perhaps even cite the violence of Christianity by pointing to the Crusades as an example. Again, we are talking about extremism as it relates to taking a more extreme or literal interpretation of the sacred texts of the religion. The Crusades were not promoted on an appeal to the Bible as much as it was an appeal to duty to king, pope, and a chance to gain wealth. Whereas, Islamic extremists are perhaps the most well versed among Muslims in the sacred texts of that religion. The Islamic extremists are actually applying Islamic principles more fully and more accurately than the nominal, secularized Muslim. And it is this fact that has to be downplayed by the media. It is amusing to frightening when we see the media repeat the line that Islam is a religion of peace, when it is clear most in the media who say this, know nothing or what the Koran actually says of the history of Islam.

For example, as current headlines read of Muslim terrorists attacking Westerners without provocation so at the very founding of America were Muslims attacking the West without provocation.

THE BARBARY PIRATES
At the very moment of America's independence, in 1783 America came under attack from Islam. At least since the 14th century, European states had been paying a tribute to Muslim states along the Mediterranean so that the Muslims would not attack European shipping. But when America gained independence, America refused to pay which caused the Muslims to attack American shipping in the Mediterranean. In 1794 Thomas Jefferson and Congress passed the Naval act which brought the U.S. Navy into existence specifically to deal with this Islamic terrorism. In the early 1800s, the Americans fought two wars against the Muslim marauders, bringing an end to the terrorism (see here) Thus America's long standing policy against appeasement to terrorists and dictators began. But before all of that, America wanted to know why the Muslims were attacking American ships.

In May 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the U.S. ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the resident Tripolitan ambassador, to try to negotiate a peace treaty to protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy. These future U.S. presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American Republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any animosity of any sort. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once." (London, Victory in Tripoli, pp. 23-24).

So, as you can see, this reasoning by Muslims in the 18th century as to why they attack non-Muslims is the exact same reasoning used by so-called Islamic extremists today. Therefore, it is not extremism, it is simply what Islamic theology teaches and its result if put into consistent practice.

The so-called "moderate Muslims" are not very good representatives of real Islam anymore than "moderate/nominal Christians are accurate representatives of practiced Christianity.

So, what does this all mean? It means that while we continue to deny the reality of Islam's historic and intrinsic hostility and violence, we will never actually be at peace with Islam. In the 1800s it took the might and determination of America to finally end the Muslim tyranny that the Europeans put up with and appeased for centuries. At some point, either a nation will have to rise up and deal with Islam once and for all, or Islam will succeed in its 4 main principles as listed above.

SEE ALSO: Islam Versus the United States
Muslim POTUS Foolish Whitewash