A Revival For Islam

The story I mentioned a couple of days ago about the Pope baptizing Magdi Allam, a Muslim convert, is getting a lot of play. Someone, and I can't remember who right now, cautioned against taking a triumphant tone. I think this is good advice. Yet I think we may look back on this someday as a very significant event.

One article you must read comes from the mysterious Spengler (via Rod Dreher). Spengler thinks the door is opening for widespread conversion of Muslims to Christianity, and this may change the entire equation of Islamic-Western relations.

Muslims suffer from a stultifying spiritual emptiness... Muslim traditional society cannot withstand the depredations of globalized culture, and radical Islam arises from a despairing nostalgia for the disappearing past. Why would Muslims trade the spiritual vacuum of Islam for the spiritual sewer of Dutch hedonism? The souls of Muslims are in agony. The blandishments of the decadent West offer them nothing but shame and deracination. Magdi Allam agrees with his former co-religionists in repudiating the degraded culture of the modern West, and offers them something quite different: a religion founded upon love.

Over a year ago, I mentioned stories about a quickening of conversions in Islamic countries. Chuck Colson (via Leticia) confirms it is still happening. Some Muslims and Christians are finding common ground in resisting the Culture of Death. I'm still cautious, but a lot seems to be happening under the radar.

Think about this: the combined efforts of Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher brought down the Soviet Union in only a few years. Can the same happen with radical Islam? It's a different kind of war now, obviously. We are in a struggle for the hearts and souls of men. Spengler argues that if Benedict can create an environment in Europe that allows Muslims to convert without risking their lives, the dam could break.

Today's Europeans stem from the melting-pot of the barbarian invasions that replaced the vanishing population of the Roman Empire. The genius of the Catholic Church was to absorb them. If Benedict XVI can convert this new wave of invaders from North Africa and the Middle East, history will place him on a par with his great namesake, the founder of the monastic order the bears his name.

This is bold talk, but stranger things have happened. In the 1980s I was a young Army officer, and I can assure you that none of us expected the Soviet Union to simply crumble away. Yet a few years later it did. We also did not have to wonder whether that evil empire had weapons of mass destruction; we knew what they had, and we knew they could be launched our way any time. If a threat that great can disappear so quickly, anything is possible. We have a Pope who is ready to lead this Crusade. I won't be surprised if it costs him his life. Yet he will press on.

So what can we do to help? Pray. Hope. And if you know any Muslims, show them the love of Christ. We can win this war - one soul at a time.

Benedict Baptizes A Muslim

Both the news media and religious blogs are chattering today about Pope Benedict's baptizing of a prominent Italian Muslim named Magdi Allam. Reaction is all over the board. Some call it a provocative move that might derail the ongoing Catholic-Islamic dialogue. That may be, but if so it will be because the Muslim side makes that choice.

I heard some people on Fox News wondering whether the Vatican made a public relations "blunder" in having the Pope publicly baptize Allam. This is, to put it lightly, absurd. The Pope is completely aware of how Muslims react to these things and is not afraid to face it. Benedict is a shepherd, and he was doing what shepherds do: welcoming new sheep into the flock. The decision to convert was made by Mr. Allam himself. He wasn't kidnapped by Swiss Guards and forced into the baptismal font.

One point that is at least partly valid, however, is what kind of challenges this action will create for Christians who live in Muslim countries. Abu Daoud has a good response:

But will this bring persecution on the Christians in [Middle East/North Africa]? Well, the honest answer is they already have it. Living fearfully and sheepishly and hiding our lights under baskets is not the way of the Kingdom of God. Good for el papa. Let your light shine before man. Allam is a Christian now, and a son of the Catholic church. That is good news and we are to shout it from roof tops if at all possible. In Rome it is still, for now, possible. The day is coming when it may not be...

Christians in MENA will indeed live with this for years. They will live with the image of the best known Christian in the world baptizing a Muslim. It will give them hope. It will encourage other Muslims to convert. It will, in a few Muslims' minds, occasion the question, "What if I left?" Most of them have never even considered the possibility. Many of them don't even know that people DO leave Islam.

This is great news for the Catholic Church as well as the mission to Muslims. Muslims respect the Catholic Church and the pope because he is powerful. That is a language that they can understand. They know that he holds more sway around the world Christians than does any single person in Islam. They know he has a country of his own. They know his office is very ancient. These things, to the Muslim mind, and specifically to the Muslim Arab mind are often attractive. Becoming a non-denominational Christian with no clear affinity or relation to anyone else is not always appealing to a Muslim considering conversion.

So yes, will there be persecution? Of course, but at least this time it will be for a good and glorious reason: the public confession of faith of a Muslim hajji in the best-known church in the world on the holiest day of the year by that city's bishop.

I would be very interesting in knowing if the decision to have Allam baptized on worldwide TV by the Pope himself was made before or after this week's Osama bin Ladin tape. The Al Qaeda leader accused the Pope of taking part in a "crusade" against Islam. If this was the Vatican's response to Bin Ladin, then they are clearly willing to play rhetorical hardball.

In any case, it was most definitely not a P.R. blunder. Welcome to Christianity, Mr. Allam. Your example will bring much good into the world.

Why I Love Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday may be my favorite Mass of the year, and not because of the procession or the palm branches. What I like is the Gospel reading. I do not know if this is common elsewhere, but in my parish the the Passion story is done with several people playing the different parts. A narrator reads most of it, with others voicing the words of the Disciples, Judas, Pontius Pilate, etc. The priest speaks the words of Christ - which in terms of quantity is a very small part.

The Gospel attributes some words not to any individual, but the "the crowd" that was present. So when we come to the part where the people cried out "Crucify Him!," the entire congregation speaks in unison. This is fitting, is it not? It reminds us that we are the reason He suffered and died. We demand "Give us Barabbas!" We taunt Him, saying "Hail, King of the Jews!" We say these things because people just like us said them on the terrible day so many years ago. We say these words so that we remember we are no better. It touches me in a way that listening to someone else read the same words, or reading them to myself alone, does not.

When the moment comes that Christ cries out and gives up His spirit, we pause, we kneel, and we reflect in silence for several minutes. Then we hear how the Temple veil was torn, the earth shook, the rocks were split and the tombs were opened. We think about how the world changed at that moment. For me, at least, it is a very moving part of the liturgy.

This is, incidentally, something that could also be done very effectively in Protestant and Evangelical services. I can think of no better way to get every individual in the congregation involved in the story. All you have to do is hand out a script to everyone (here is an example), assign parts to some of your leaders, and read it during the service. Families could also do it at home, with children assigned different parts. Since this reading doesn't include the Resurrection, it is best done during the season but before Easter Sunday.

A Common Word

This week a meeting will take place in Rome that won't get much press coverage. It may, however, prove to be the beginning of the most critical negotiations in modern history. From the BBC:

Vatican officials and senior Muslims are due to meet in Rome, hoping to lay the groundwork for landmark Catholic-Islamic talks later this year.

Five senior figures from each religion will define the terms of a larger meeting involving Pope Benedict XVI.

Catholic-Muslim relations soured after a 2006 speech in Germany, in which the Pope quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor's criticisms of Islam.

The Regensburg speech provoked Muslim fury and triggered protests worldwide.

But it also prompted 138 Muslim scholars to launch an appeal to the Pope for greater dialogue.

Among the Muslim representatives at this week's two-day talks are a Turk, a Briton, a Jordanian, a Libyan and an Italian.

The Vatican has regular meetings with officials from Cairo's al-Azhar University, a seat of Sunni Muslim learning.

But the Pope now seems convinced of the need for a wider, if more difficult dialogue with Islam.

Reuters also has the story. Why is this so important? If our current course continues, the conflict between radical Islam and the West is going to end very, very badly. Many more will die on both sides. We cannot win this battle with military force. Our only hope is to reach some kind of arrangement that will let Christianity and Islam share the planet in peace.

Such an agreement won't come easily. Yet I think there is cause for optimism. Muslims don't hate us for our freedom; they hate what we do with our freedom. It is the radical secularism of Western society that Islam finds unacceptable. Benedict XVI finds it unacceptable, too, and has been working to change it. He may be the only person in the world who has moral authority with both Christians and Muslims. He is also someone who will not compromise the Truth.

The Muslim scholars, for their part, seem to be sincere. They call their group A Common Word, and their web site has a hopeful tone. Do they represent all Muslims? No. Even if some sort of agreement is reached - which could take years - it's far from clear they will be able to convince the Islamic world to accept it.

This week's meetings are for the purpose of agreeing upon an agenda for wider talks later this year. Boring? Yes, but the agenda is critically important. It is the first step down a very long road, and a road that will have many twists and turns. Yet it is the only road that will lead to peace - and maybe even survival. It is a road we have to take.

Intelligence and Hope for Iraq

Lots of buzz this week about the revelation that US intelligence agencies now believe Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is jarringly inconsistent with Bush Administration efforts to convince us that Iran poses an imminent threat to world peace. Only a few weeks ago the president himself talked about a possible World War III if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Partisans on both ends of the spectrum quickly formulated their own explanations how the National Intelligence Estimate (or "NIE" as the cool people call it) could have such a surprising conclusion. War hawks and neoconservatives say it can't possibly be true since Iran is so obviously trying to acquire nukes. They suspect anti-Bush forces in the CIA and State Department are spinning the information to discredit the president's policy. Liberals and Democrats say the opposite: the NIE proves that the Bush Administration was once again trying to lie its way into war and this time got caught with its hand in the cookie jar.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between. We need to keep several things in mind in order to evaluate this story properly. First, we are all operating in a vacuum. Most of the NIE is classified and pundits on both side haven't seen the whole thing. Some reports suggest there is "new information" that caused analysts to reassess their previous conclusions. What they new information is, and whether it even exists, is something none of us know for sure.

Second, this NIE comes from the same intelligence community that thought it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program in Iraq. For the last few years they've consistently said the same about Iran, until now. I would like to think they couldn't possibly be so spectacularly wrong twice in a row, but stranger things have happened.

Third, it's hard to believe the White House was surprised about this. An NIE is published only after months of dialogue between the CIA, DIA, NSA, State Department, Pentagon, and assorted other agencies. It's not something that sneaks up on you. The president's staff had to know this was coming weeks ago. If they really were blindsided, it suggests that Bush has utterly failed to get control of the intelligence bureaucracy after seven years in office. I'm not sure that even this Administration could be that incompetent.

Fourth, it is exceedingly unusual for an intelligence report to underestimate a threat to the United States. The normal practice is to err on the side of caution and overstate the potential danger. That's what happened all through the Cold War, when we were told that the Soviet Army was a highly-trained, well-equipped disciplined fighting force that could pour across the Fulda Gap and overwhelm NATO anytime it wished. None of this was true, we later learned. Having been there myself, I can assure you the U.S. was extremely worried about it at the time. There must be a serious reason that this NIE breaks the pattern.

So what's going on? I agree with George Friedman at Stratfor.com that the NIE is most likely correct; Iran probably does not have a nuclear weapons program, and never did. There is no doubt they have a nuclear energy program, but that's not surprising. They know as well as we do that the oil won't last forever. Meanwhile nuclear energy for their domestic needs means they can sell more oil for export.

The mullahs who control Iran are many things but they are not stupid. They know that there is little to gain from having nukes except the certainty of complete destruction if they ever used on on Israel or anyone else. There is, however, a lot they can gain from having the world think they are pursuing nuclear weapons. It worked for Saddam, at least until he pushed a little too far. They think they can be The Mouse That Roared.

Friedman points out that the release of the NIE at this particular juncture, intentional or not, solves a thorny geopolitical problem for both the United States and Iran. That problem is Iraq. The U.S. cannot sustain current force levels for much longer. Iran, for its part, cannot allow Iraq to become an American outpost on its border. Some compromise needs to be reached, but that cannot happen as long as the world thinks Iran has nuclear ambitions.

By removing this factor from the equation, the NIE sets the stage for serious discussions between the U.S. and Iran about the Iraq question. In fact, in an odd way the NIE could be very helpful to the U.S. in such discussions. As Friedman says, if Iran has no nuclear program then the U.S. need not make any concessions to get rid of it. We just called their bluff, in other words.

If this thesis is correct, then there may be light at the end of the tunnel for American involvement in Iraq. The Bush Administration would like nothing more than an opportunity to declare victory and leave. Iran has the power to grant that wish, but won't do so without extracting some favors from the U.S. I suspect some sort of grand bargain is being designed behind the scenes.

It's funny how hope seems to come when you least expect it - and from the places you least expect it. If the U.S. and Iran can work out their differences there is hope for a broader stability in the Middle East. Time magazine recently reported that Iran would like to have the Vatican - which has diplomatic relations on both sides - mediate in talks with the United States. Given that Pope Benedict XVI just released a new encyclical about hope called Spe Salvi, there may be a chance for a happy ending here. We should all pray for it.