The recent massacre by Islamic extremists at the Charlie Hebdo office in France has shocked the world. I have my own theories why this particular act of terrorism brought such a show of anti-Islamic extremism solidarity whereas other, much more shocking attacks like the Taliban murdering 133 children in cold blood or Boko Haram murdering potentially 2,000 villagers generated what amounted to a media shoulder shrug. But nonetheless, the European Union has finally realized the fact that not simply is generic extremism or activism (which in theory could refer to Christians, Buddhists, vegetarians, environmentalists, etc.) the problem as many in our media have put it. Islamic extremism in particular is the problem.
The question that so many in our nation as well as the rest of the West (not to mention many African, Asian, and Middle Eastern nations as well) are finding the need to answer is this: how do you deal with a foe such as this one? This is a question to which no one—at least in the West—seems to have a good answer. I think there are several reasons for this.
First, there are a lot of them. Estimates for the number of radicalized Muslims in the world vary fairly widely from consisting of as little as 1% of the worldwide Muslim population to as much as 20% or more. Certainly the larger estimate is disturbing given that with a total Muslim population of 1.6 billion that makes 360 million individuals—more than the entire U. S. population—who think the rest of us should either convert to Islam or die for refusing and are very content to see the tactics of terrorism used to force the issue. Even if the smaller estimate is correct, though, again, when you are drawing from a pool of 1.6 billion, you still have an enemy the size of New York City with which to contend.
Second, in the U. S. at least, our national leaders appear either unwilling or unable to accurately identify who they are. The Obama administration in particular seems doggedly determined to define them as something other than Muslims. And, while I appreciate their desire to avoid a backlash against the majority of peaceful followers of Mohammed living within our borders, this effort lands somewhere between benignly misguided and dangerously ignorant. The problem here is this: the radicals are explicitly clear that they believe they represent the only true and acceptable form of Islam. Furthermore, all the other Muslims of the world (save perhaps a few in the West), while they disagree with the interpretations of the radicals, harbor no doubts that they are also Muslims. Calling them something other than they are doesn’t help anyone. If you cannot properly identify a problem you’re never going to solve it.
Third and most importantly, with the expanding embrace of secularism in the West, more and more people don’t have the worldview means to understand radical Islam. In the worldview that lies behind secularism, the only thing truly held as sacred is personal autonomy. People should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with whomever they want, for as long as they want, and if what they want changes, they should be able to pursue that instead…as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Secularism holds that people should define themselves from start to finish. Even things like gender are open to interpretation depending upon how a person feels at a given moment. And in the West, the worldview of secularism has permeated all other worldviews including Christianity, a fact well-noted by Muslims around the world.
Islam, however, and especially radical Islam, represents the exact opposite end of the worldview continuum. Whereas secularism is radically committed to personal autonomy, to the idea that the self is the measure of all things, Islam is radically committed to the idea that Allah is the measure of all things. There is no such thing as personal autonomy in Islam, only submission to Allah. Thus for committed Muslims, secularists, even Christianized secularists, are utterly depraved infidels. One of the intellectual founders of the modern face of radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, studied briefly at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. He came away thoroughly convinced of the irredeemable moral depravity of the U. S. What did he see that so drove him down the road to radicalism? Things like men and women sitting next to each other in churches, jazz music, and the grossly immodest fashion of the 1940s. Our culture hasn’t exactly gone running back down the road to wholesomeness since then.
For seculariststs who are deeply committed to their vision of personal autonomy, the sacramentalism of Muslims generally (and Christians for that matter), but radical Muslims in particular, makes no sense. Their commitment to a way of life that involves a great deal of self-denial and the giving of authority of oneself over to someone else is viewed in much the same way as a circus sideshow act—a novelty at which to marvel with a strong sense of repulsion, but certainly not something you want for yourself or anyone else. For radical Muslims, the secularist’s commitment to themselves and their own desires is not simply foolish, but blasphemously so. In their view, the existence of the West itself (and, in truth, anyone who does not fully share their murderous ideology) is an offense against Allah, the time for repentance is past, and destruction is the only proper end for all those who are part of it. And, given their theology, they are generally very content to give up their lives in an attempt to bring about this destruction.
This brings us back around to our initial question: how to you handle folks like this? Well, you start by understanding them. In combating radical Islam we are primarily fighting a theological battle. It has physical ramifications, to be sure, but the first theater of this war is one of theology. Thus, while I by no means think the weapons of war available to our national leaders should be off the table, taking the life of a man who believes it is his theologically-inspired duty to murder others does not address the theology that led him to such a place and won’t keep others from adopting it as well. The nihilistic secularism of the West has nothing with which to combat such a strong theology because even though it provides a more peaceful and prosperous life than Islamic statism has ever managed (thanks in large part to a liberal borrowing from the Christian worldview roots that have made it possible), it is devoid of meaning and purpose while radical Islam is flushed with both. This kind of enemy with the backing of a consistent, if awful, worldview can only be defeated by a more powerful, more attractive worldview. It is only the power of the cross and the theology of Jesus that can overcome this foe. The final solution, of course, will likely be much more complicated than this, but at the core, a cup of poison cannot be neutralized by a cup of air, only a cup of antidote. The Christian faith represents the only real antidote to the poison of radical Islam. The power of the sword wielded by the state will likely have to be part of the solution, but only a stronger theology will solve the real problem. Let us pray it does quickly. Come, Lord Jesus.