Can we call these "Jizyah refunds"?

Princeton is due one, for sure.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 13, 2005 6:45 AM

Note that the center at Georgetown is called "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding." Apparently, al-Walid's big money can put the Jews out of the picture.

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 13, 2005 6:58 AM

This is the "faculty" of Center which the Prince bought and paid for. Of course, John Esposito was bought with Saudi money a long time ago. One would hope ( though one does not expect ) that when any of these Saudi propagandists appear in the media that they would be identified as paid lobbyists for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In addition, any books which were written by these Saudi-funded "scholars" and which are used as textbooks should be made to carry the warning label "Funded by The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia":

Core Faculty
John Esposito
University Professor
Yvonne Haddad
Professor of the History of Islam
Anwar Ibrahim
Visiting Prof., Malaysia Chair of Islam in SE Asia
Amira Sonbol
Professor of Islamic History, Law and Society
John Voll
Director
Adjunct Faculty
Diane Apostolos-Cappadona
Adjunct Professor; Adjunct Professor and Core Faculty for Art and Culture, Liberal Studies Program
Project Directors
Zahid Bukhari
Director, American Muslim Studies Program
Shireen Hunter
Director, Carnegie Project on Reformist IslamAbout

Posted by: MJ at December 13, 2005 7:15 AM

I now give Harvard and Georgetown an "F"
for gross studpity and hypocrisy.

Time to write some more letters!!

Posted by: learjet0450 at December 13, 2005 7:52 AM

Why get so upset?

Saudi arabia has been buying American favour for decades and this is no exception. Look at Bush senior and his mates and just who has employed them!!

This is just the USA equivalent of Madrassas elswhere.

While the Saudis have so much money there will always be fools in the west who cannot see past the next oil dollar. The greed associated with capitalist society is simply being astutely exploited by the saudis.

All they have to do is to reject it but if the academics in the USA are like those in Oz then they will use eunuchoidal religious "tolerance" as the reason to accept it not realising that they are just putting another nail in the coffin of western civilisation.

Posted by: Zathras at December 13, 2005 8:43 AM

No doubt they will eventually build mosques on the Harvard, and Georgetown Campuses and they will be run by Waahabists with no complaints from the universities as long as the money keeps rolling in.

Posted by: Mackie at December 13, 2005 8:57 AM

How many of these centers has the good Prince established in Saudi Arabia? Are the Saudis as eager to build bridges as American Universities are?

Posted by: Chatillon at December 13, 2005 10:18 AM

Pathetic, and unnecessary. Like Melinda Gates turning $20 tricks. Veritas, my ass.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 13, 2005 10:21 AM

If Harvarad and Princeton would have any integrity, they would fling back the money in the Saudi price's face, like Rudolf Giulani did to those sneaky promoters of violent doctrine in the wake of 9/11.

The acceptance of such money is tantamount to prostitution.

Posted by: rocky at December 13, 2005 10:37 AM

This saudi prince is trouble, and the US should keep their eyes on him. He is bad news.

Posted by: Unbridled at December 13, 2005 10:37 AM

He is no friend of America, he's a wanker

Posted by: Unbridled at December 13, 2005 10:39 AM

An important nuance of this bribe, errr gift, is that the Walsh School of Foreign Service is where the elite of the elite State Department Foreign Service Officers are trained. Someone on this forum asked a months ago where the American diplomats are getting all of their information about Islam. Well here's your answer.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at December 13, 2005 10:39 AM

Used to be a time that academe stood for freedom of thought, intellectual honesty, and integrity. No more.

It would be tempting to mount a civil rights lawsuit if this were to happen at a state university.

Over the past 30 years Harvard has been an unmitigated disaster, harming not only itself but American education in general, even the nation.

PORK FOR MOSLEMS PORK FOR MOSLEMS PORK FOR MOSLEMS PORK FOR MOSLEMS

What in the world do the "study" in these places?

We know that they don't read Islamic scriptures, so they must be in an echo chamber where they read one another's bullcrap, no?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 13, 2005 10:42 AM

Rocky's right that the varsities --at least Harvard and Geotown-- are becoming like brothels.

Chatillon's question is the right one. Let's ask how many interfaith tolerance centers the Saudis have at home in the Jazeera.

Also, ask why interfaith understanding at Geotown is only "Muslim-Christian", not "Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Hindu" etc??

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 13, 2005 10:51 AM

As anyone familiar with the Georgetown entity knows, it's not really the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. It's the Center for Explaining Islam to Christians, as the cirriculum is 100 percent one-sided. Last I looked, their homepage had links to numerous Muslim dawah sites, but no links to Christian missionary sites -- or Christian sites of any kind at all. The onus of "understanding" Christianity is not on the Muslim students.

Note that this organization has been run for years by Jihad Johnny Esposito, a finalist in our American Dhimmi of the Year competition.

Posted by: Suzan at December 13, 2005 10:56 AM

That's a good idea. From now on I will refer to the Harvard Madrassah and the Georgetown Madrassah, America's largest Islamic universities.

Posted by: John Sobieski at December 13, 2005 11:06 AM

Georgetown is like Columbia. They can no more be embarassed than a lower eastside crack-addict street hooker. Harvard, on the other hand, is the society housewife turning tricks on the side. It can be exposed and even made crimson-faced. Are these new faculty hires subject to the prince's approval? Who produced and who selects the course materials? Expose the lies.

Maybe Summers' judgement really is suspect, as charged.

Posted by: Infidel33 at December 13, 2005 11:35 AM

From the last paragraphs of this Daily Scorecard Blog entry:

In the preparatory ministerial conference to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), al Faisal laid out a 10-year "plan of action to confront the challenges of the 21st century." The 57-nation Organization held a meeting last week, to approve the "Mecca Declaration." The heart of the declaration, according to the Prince, is to change the “harsh offensive on Islam from enemies abroad and some of its own children with deviant ideologies."

Bin Talal has been advocating for years that this policy can be best achieved by leveraging Arab wealth. On May 1, 2002, in an interview with Lachlan Carmichael for the Saudi daily Arab News, Bin Talal stressed the importance of developing an Arab economic dominance over the U.S. Instead of boycotting American businesses, he said, “Arabs… stand more to benefit from maintaining trade ties with the US because the trade balance between the Arabs and the US is in our favor."

Bin Talal concluded in the 2002 Arab News interview: “to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active inside the US Congress or the administration but also inside US society."

And bin Talal is moving fast. On December 5, Reuters reported from Dubai that bin Talal complained: “We in the Arab world are not doing the job of explaining ourselves properly.” To remedy the situation, and to bring the proper message to America’s brightest minds, bin Talal said that he established special centers dealing with Arab and Islamic studies at Harvard and Georgetown universities. In addition, he announced his plan to shortly launch a television channel called ”The Message,” which, within two years will broadcast to the United States to “spread the right message”.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 13, 2005 12:13 PM

This Saudi money definetly goes to the pockets of leading Amercian news paper editors,Politicians, Univercity Professors, leading judges and Tv news casters. If you find in them, a sudden change and a slight tilt towards Islam, in their writeups,speech, judgements,or announcements, just get a clue that 'Allah's dough' is working!.

Posted by: rafia at December 13, 2005 12:23 PM

nariz, please explain to us how this is a right-wing campus....

Posted by: Gary at December 13, 2005 12:24 PM

It cracks me up how they claim that the Jews control the media and want to control everything else when, in fact, this prince is 5th on Forbes list of wealthiest people and owns a butt-load of stock in various companies, of which many various news outlets are included. Who owns the media? Certainly not the Jews!

Harvard and Georgetown should take the money and run with it. Put it to whatever use they want. Why not? That’s money that likely came from us anyway, just handed over to the Saudis for their oil or paid for by you and I through the profits the many companies he owns stocks in made. Build a giant statue of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud (that’s a real mouthful …why can’t they be named simple things like Joey, Steve or Frank?) sitting on the crapper for all I care. Do anything with it besides building anything Islamic with it.

Oh, there’s definitely a growing understanding of Islam in this country and what we’re beginning to learn, we don’t like. It may have taken us getting attacked to really wake up, look around, and take an interest in learning about it, but they got our attention and we’re giving them hell in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks in large measures to their own actions and if Iran gets too far out of line (as if they aren’t already) they’ll likely be next on the receiving end of America’s wrath. We’re learning and we’re getting pretty fired up.

Screw this Prince and his funding Islamic studies. The only interest I have in Islam is how can it be reformed, join the modern world, and how can they possibly pull the hatred of all non-Muslims out of the Qur’an?

Figure that out and I’d gladly accept this wolf in sheep’s clothing’s donations…

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at December 13, 2005 12:38 PM

Thanks for the hat tip Shy Guy.
Here's another doozy to take note of.

PA OFFICIALLY FUNDING SHAHID'S FAMILIES
after the same day "condemning" Netanya Suicide Bombing

Does this officially end the farce of the PA "wanting peace" in the NY Times, CNN and the like? Does this officially constitute a violation to the State Dept's "Roadmap to Peace"?

Enacting a special law to financially support terrorists will ensure that this kind of activity continues. Each shahid?s family will receive a monthly stipend of at least $250. The family of a married shahid will receive an additional $50. Parents will receive an additional $25, and each additional child and/or brother or sister will get another $15.

1) He believes in terror?
2) He is ambivalent but needs this to maintain power?
3) The dominant ideology in the PA territories is violence, terrorism and martyrdom?
4) He knows Europe and even the US won't do a dam thing about it and can easily play both sides to enable the US to save face.
5) He knows that if he doesn't Hamas and Islamic Jihad will take over the will of the people because they are strident, irredentist and much less corrupt than the PA?

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at December 13, 2005 12:45 PM

"Harvard's news release quoted him as saying that he hoped Harvard's Islamic studies program "will enable generations of students and scholars to gain a thorough understanding of Islam and its role both in the past and in today's world."

Swords

Obese Imams preaching hatred

Rocks

Explosives

That's it for today's class, students. And tomorrow's, and the day after, and so on......

Posted by: DCWatson at December 13, 2005 1:41 PM

Disgraceful!!! Are we that bankrupt to accept money from a Savage? to teach more of their barbaric ideology. Islam can teach us absolutely nothing.
Our western democracies have made spectacular accomplishments without any input from this 7th century demonology; its all attributable to Judeo-Christian cultural values.

Posted by: faqi at December 13, 2005 1:51 PM

Ahh, I can comment today.

I must say that American universities are going down the drain mighty fast. I was talking last night with some of my Egyptian friends and they were shocked that Sharia had been in Canada for only a little bit.

I swear that Canada is the sh!!iest country in the modern advanced world, although it hasn't advanced very much.

Posted by: Ibn Rushd at December 13, 2005 1:51 PM

Where is Sharia in Canada? Where is it law and where is it practiced?

Posted by: Asylum inmate at December 13, 2005 2:45 PM

If anyone here has AOL service, and happen to have trouble with your computer that needs AOL technical service, try to remember whose name pops up to help you. Is is Mike or Chad, or is it Mohamed or Ahmed?

The good prince has a load of Muslims working in technical support over at AOL too. Not to say that they can't do their job, but is it America Online, or Arab Online?

Did any Americans lose out on jobs since the good prince took his unearned money and put it into AOL stock?

Posted by: Asylum inmate at December 13, 2005 2:48 PM

The first commencement speech at Harvard after 9/11 was titled "My Jihad" which if jihad means struggle like most moslems will tell you, that translates into German as "Mein Kampf".

Posted by: Borg at December 13, 2005 3:04 PM

We're treated to pro-Islam screeds one after another, with mind-numbing regularity.

The awful PBS documentary, Oprah's apologetic Palestinian sideshow, 24's abrupt reversal, then the historically fake Kingdom of Heaven, which was reinforced the egregiously misleading History Channel special on the Crusades, and now Syriana.

Would it be asking too much for an objective 1-hour documentary reviewing exactly how all this hatred and threat and murder is being caused by the West's failure to adequately understand Islam?

To quote the regrettable Bill O'Reilly, where am I going wrong here?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 13, 2005 4:58 PM

Eliyahu wonders why there aren't Muslim-Jewish, Muslim-Hindu, Muslim-Buddhist, etc. Understanding Centers as well as Muslim-Christian. Good point.

The Prince is quoted as saying in his letter to Mayor Giuliani following the 9/11 attacks on the US, perpetrated by his countrymen, that "Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."... So why doesn't he put his money to more productive use offer to set up Islamic-Israeli Understanding Centers? Maybe that's all that's required to bridge the gap between Palestinian and Israeli. Doh! Why didn't I think of that before?

Another thing which struck me as awkward was his use of the phrase "Turning the other cheek." "Turning the other cheek," as the Prince may or may not know, is an admonishment to the would-be Christian to show forebearance in response to injury and injustice. If the Palestinians are the aggrieved party, then that choice is theirs, not the World's. Maybe he meant to say "Turn a blind eye" but wanted the words to play to a certain crowd... Just a cynical thought. But while my thoughts are going down this road, I'd like to know just how much he donates per annum to the Palestinian people, living in poverty since 1948, to offset their misery? And what level of help has he offered to the poor people rioting in Paris many of whom happen to be his coreligionists? And the earthquake victims in Pakistan? And the tsunami victims? Now those are some causes that could use a hand and everyone in the world, Muslims and non-Muslim alike, could see the good use his wealth would be put to.

Money talks. But actions still speak louder than words.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 13, 2005 5:14 PM

RED ALERT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC-----

(if anybody is home?????).

The last time I checked, Harvard University had a law school. Therefore.....

Will somebody there PLEASE inform the US government and the Harvard University Administration that FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT Islam constitutes CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MULTIPLE HOMICIDES!!!!!

Thus, Islam has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN A CIVILIZATION LIKE AMERICA'S. PERMITTING ISLAM TO OPERATE IN AMERICA IS INHERENTLY DISCRIMINATORY!!

And the US government by permitting Islam to be "spread" is aiding and abetting what is basically a criminal act!!!!!!!!!!!!

The worst part of all this, it is the American people who are being targeted for murder by Islamic doctrine!!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 13, 2005 6:06 PM

Thats how you ' revert' the centers of the higher education industry into centers of Islamic indoctrination.

Soon you'll see a new sign: "The Harvard Madrassah"

or "The Islamic Jihad University of Georgetown"...

Just lie down, it might blow over...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 13, 2005 6:35 PM

From The Village Voice:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Instead of laying $20 million on Harvard and Georgetown universities in one more effort to win the hearts and minds of the children of America's elite, as Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia did this week, it would be so much more to the point if he demanded a little transparency from the Saudi royal family.

“As you know, since the 9-11 events, the image of Islam has been tarnished in the West,'' said the Saudi prince, who has extensive business dealings in the U.S. and Europe. This is the same prince who tried to give New York $10 million after 9-11, but was rebuffed by Mayor Giuliani when he said the U.S. ought to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause.'' The prince said other gifts to American universities in Cairo and Beirut will teach Arabs about America, while the gifts to Harvard and Georgetown are “to teach about the Islamic world to the United States.”

Instead of giving these wealthy exclusive universities money, why doesn't the Saudi royal family come clean and tell us what it was doing before 9-11? Did it help finance, directly or indirectly, the attacks that day? Are members of the Saudi government and royal family now providing financial support to al Qaeda?

Why give money to wealthy American universities when the family should be investing in its own poor populace, offering them an economic future not solely dependent on the export of a raw commodity-oil-to the U.S. and Europe? If the huge Saudi reservoirs are beginning to decline, that country is headed for virtual ruin, putting more and more people into worsening economic situations, while the few very rich in the royal family party on. What about providing Saudi women with a status equal to that of Saudi men?

The Joint Inquiry of the Congress formed to investigate intelligence failures after 9-11 discovered a Saudi spy operating in the U.S. There is widespread speculation in Washington that he was but one of several Saudi spies operating in the U.S.

Former Senator Bob Graham describes in detail in his book, Intelligence Matters, how the Saudi government paid one of its California operatives through a chain of conduits, and how a member of the royal family contributed cash to the spy's family as well. This took place in California while al Qaeda was gearing up for the attacks, among other things settling two of its hijackers in San Diego.

In attempting to track Middle East terrorists, especially al Qaeda before 9-11, FBI officials sought to interview several people detained by the Saudis. At first the government stonewalled the feds; then they beheaded the suspects before the FBI could arrive.

And what was in those notorious 28 pages of classified material in the Joint Inquiry report, reportedly dealings with the activities of Saudi officials with regard to 9-11?

Both Harvard and Georgetown gratefully took the handout. Georgetown president John DeGioia was almost groveling when he declared in a statement, “We are deeply honored by Prince Alwaleed's generosity.”

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 13, 2005 7:34 PM

From FrontPage Magazine:

Buying Fox News

Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal boasted in Dubai earlier this week about his ability to change the news content that viewers around the world see on television.

In early September 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp. This made the Fifth richest man on the Forbes World's Richest People, the fourth largest voting shareholder in News Corp., the parent of Fox News. News Corp. is the world's leading newspaper publisher in English. It operates more than 175 newspapers, in the UK, Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the US, and distributes more than 40 million papers per week. In addition, News Corp. owns and operates an international collection of TV outlets, radio stations, magazines, book publishers and film studios.

After bin Talal purchased his voting shares in News Corp., on September 23, 2005, he stated in an advertising supplement to the New York Times, “When I invest in a group like CITICROUP, the Four Seasons, the News Corp. or Time Warner, my objective is not to manage those companies.” But this is not quite accurate, considering the Prince’s December 5, 2005 statement given to Middle East Online regarding his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in Paris last November, Fox ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots." Bin Talal was not happy. "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty," he said. "Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 13, 2005 7:45 PM

Do you think the good old liberal elitists at Harvard and Georgetown would accept 20 million for a Christian studies center? Kinda hard to play polo on a camel.

Posted by: ARAKIS at December 13, 2005 7:59 PM

the two colleges took the money ????????
SICK PUPPIES

Posted by: marilyn at December 13, 2005 8:00 PM

The inclusion of Saudi Arabia into the WTO has provided that country with a certain “air of legitimacy” when spreading Islam to the rest of the world. It may not always be necessary for the Saudis to fund violent jihad activities when their goals can be secured by monetary mechanisms.

As our world continues to shrink because of emerging markets and competition for natural resources, it will necessarily follow that nations will cooperate or war with one another to get what is best for them. This collaboration or conflict will accordingly bring about an exchange of ideas, both politically and culturally. The Saudis know this and have chosen to impose their agenda through subversive means.

The duplicitous Saudi approach to international affairs seems to be accepted (for now) because world demand for oil is so great. Western governments exercise a pragmatic approach towards the Kingdom, allowing for their “slight transgressions” here and there. President Bush has gone so far to even certify Saudi Arabia as an “ally” on the war on terror.

Saudi intentions and Western pragmatism actually play into the hands of hard core Islamic terrorists who dream of the restoration of the Caliphate. If the relentless Saudi agenda is followed through to its logical end, this restoration will not be on a regional level, but one which is global in nature. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of an Islamic influence undermining the status quo of Western civilization, because it is already happening in Europe and to a lesser degree, Canada and the United States.

The hatred expressed by Islamic fundamentalists towards a Saudi regime that appears to be cooperating with the West has blinded these radicals to the fact that the Kingdom is actually troweling out the first layer on to which these Islamists can build their gloabl Shari’a regime’s foundation. For once Islam gets any semblance of a foothold, however moderate, the process of reverting back to historical Islam can be made that much easier by traditional Islamists.

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 13, 2005 8:09 PM

As can be expected, the local MSM is ignoring the fact that Harvard University recieved this substantial endowment as they have ignored Saudi money going to build a mosque in Roxbury. Neither the Boston Globe nor the Herald have covered it.

There is hope though, as I was driving home I listened to Michael Graham on 96.9 talk radio. He spent the entire show lambasting Harvard for accepting $20M from the same prince that gave $27M to the Al Aqusa Marters telethon. He indicated that he is not going to let up. Lets hope he give the Crimson infidels something to think about.

Posted by: GFB at December 13, 2005 8:18 PM

I must say that American universities are going down the drain mighty fast. I was talking last night with some of my Egyptian friends and they were shocked that Sharia had been in Canada for only a little bit.

THERE IS NO, YOU SEE NO SHARIA LAW IN CANADA!!! IT WAS NOT VOTED, NEVER WAS, AND OVER MY DEAD BODY WILL SHARIA LAW BE IN CANADA!!!

Posted by: Lulu at December 13, 2005 10:06 PM

The last time I checked, Georgetown is still a Catholic university. Will there be a brave and thoughtful priest, bishop or Catholic lay person who challenges Georgetown as it takes the blood money from that Saudi prince? Will someone prominent within the US Catholic Church point out the hate literature still printed by Saudi foundations demanding that Muslims hate non-Muslims and that this hatred is fueling violence against non-Muslim all over the world. Is there a prominent Catholic, either in the clergy or a lay person, willing to do this? I fear no one will step up to the plate, but I will wait and see.

Posted by: maryrose at December 13, 2005 10:12 PM

maryrose asks,

Is there a prominent Catholic, either in the clergy or a lay person, willing to do this?

Might this be an answer?

From AGI Online:

ISLAM AND VATICAN: CIAMPI CALLS FOR MUTUAL RESPECT

(AGI) - Vatican, Dec 13 - Italian president Ciampi today stressed the importance of mutual respect between the Catholic Church and Islam. Ciampi submitted his thoughts as part of a note of accompaniment to the Conference on "Christianity and Islam, Past and Present", held at the Vatican University to mark the fifth centenary since the birth of Saint Pius V, historically remembered as having blessed the battleships in Lepanto. "Careful historical, social and theological analysis on the cultural ties between Christianity and Islam is preliminary to - Ciampi writes - a deeper understanding of peoples' integration processes and warrants for greater respect of different cultural identities and common values".

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 13, 2005 10:24 PM

old sheik waleedi,
he's hateful and greedy,
buying our culture and wealth,
and not even in stealth,
waving his petrodollars
(we give him, is it a sin?)
at the ivory tower scholars
greedy as old sheik waleedi.
Guilani, (may he be blessed)
said we don't need your check,
we won't be bought,
at your beck and call.
but that smart jihadi
he'll gives us oil
and propoganda, mayhem and murder,
hate in intolerable doses,
while we lie in his bed,
while we drive our large cars,
use trucks not trains,
don't turn out the lights.
We must conserve energy,
for the coming times.
And there so many things we can do
to old sheik waleedi and his wahabbi thugs
and not suffer, for we are so spoiled,
if only we find the will,
to unify as the Free, and see
that the majority of humantiy
is decent, loving and kind,
and of like mind.

Posted by: the poetess at December 13, 2005 10:35 PM

The Catholics seem to be under the delusion that some faith is better than no faith at all, so they admire the faith of the Muslims.

They forget that, despite the "Allah being the one God talk" they are in fact worshiping a bloodthirsty stone-idol in Mecca, towards which they direct all their prayers and the face of every animal being slaughtered and every single corpse buried bu moslems.

Creepy.

Posted by: rocky at December 13, 2005 10:36 PM

the poetess,

Understood and enjoyed. Thanks.

Posted by: Eschwapp at December 13, 2005 10:43 PM

Lulu,

Thanks. There is no sharia law in Canada.

Excerpt from a letter sent by the Ontario Attorney General:

"...there will be no religious family arbitrations in Ontario. One law will be applied to all family arbitrations, and that will be the law of Canada. That policy will not prevent anyone from taking advice from anyone, including his or her religious leaders."

A similar sharia proposal was also rejected in Quebec.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 13, 2005 11:06 PM

His house in encrusted with jewels
Which he got in exchange for the fuels
Which he pumps from the ground
And the bucks he spreads round
Will serve as Islam's evil tools

His nictating looks like grand mal
This prince named Alwaleed bin Talal...
His checks are still good
Even though he's a hood
From the criminal Kingdom withal...

The sycophants all will be brash
For the treasure which spills from his stash
They will clamor to please
This verminous sleeze
In exchange for his ill gotten cash...

The evil on which it is spent
Perpetuates Islam's intent
To destroy and defame
In the seracen's name
Forever and without relent...

Merry Christmas Harvard! Merry Christmas Georgetown! I'm sure we will all bear sincere rictus smiles when we experience the "thorough understanding of Islam" which these endowments will provide...

Posted by: jsla at December 13, 2005 11:33 PM

From a posting last January:

"The Sabbagh who gave the $6.5 million to support Esposito's pro-Muslim empire at Georgetown. Note to James V. Schall: can you convince Georgetown's administration to sever its now-embarrassing tie to Esposito? At some point he, and Georgetown, have to part ways, for the sake of Georgetown's reputation, and continued support from alumni."

James V. Schall is one member of the faculty at Georgetown who is appalled by Esposito, and no doubt there are others. Georgetown alumni and parents of current students should should protest the continued assocation of Esposito, and his operation (Voll, Haddad, and so on), which is entirely devoted to misrepresenting Islam, pooh-poohing repeatedly the threat of Jihad or even the existence of the duty of Jihad (google "Esposito" and see what you find on him at Campus-Watch.com, or do the same for "Yvonne Haddad" or "John Voll").

Let Esposito and his sinister "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" simply go its own way. Sever its ties to, and malignant influence upon, Georgetown, its faculty, its students, its integrity. This cannot continue.

As for James V. Schall, S.J., a professor at Georgetown, he is just the man, though by nature unassuming, to bring this matter to the attention of the administration and alumni. Unlike the lean, mean, jogging Esposito, Schall has no interest in money or power, and will speak truth, as the phrase so overused now goes, to both. To the fabulously rich Arab donors, whether the Sabbagh contracting familiy in Lebanon, or this Saudi princeling donating $20 million out of pure self-interest, as part of the new plan to spend, overspend, hyperspend, outspend, all those who have managed to inject a tiny note of truth into the discussion of Islam -- against all the odds, with virtually no support public or private.

For a sample of what James V. Schall, S.J., professor of government at Georgetown, writes that so distinguishes him from the meretricious Esposito, here's an article from a recent issue of "Policy Review":

When War Must Be the Answer

By James V. Schall
James V. Schall, S.J., is professor of government at Georgetown University. He is the author of At the Limits of Political Philosophy (Catholic University Press of America, 1996) among many other books.

(Go to Print Friendly Version)

It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace.

— Christopher Dawson, “The Catholic Attitude to War,” 19371

While the effects of sin abound — greed, dishonesty and corruption, broken relationships and exploitation of persons, pornography and violence — the recognition of individual sinfulness has waned. In its place a disturbing culture of blame and litigiousness has arisen which speaks more of revenge than justice and fails to acknowledge that in every man and woman there is a wound which, in the light of faith, we call original sin.
— John Paul II, Address to American Bishops, May 14, 2004

calm and reasonable case can and should be made for the possession and effective use of force in today’s world. It is irresponsible not to plan for the necessity of force in the face of real turmoils and enemies actually present in the world. No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary.

This view goes against a certain rhetorical grain, but it is a fact that needs attention and comprehension. We are not in some new world-historic age in which we can bypass these “outmoded” instruments of power, however rhetorically fine it may be to talk that way. Human nature has not changed, neither for better nor for worse. Human institutions, whether national or international, have not so improved that they themselves cannot be threats to the human good. Who watches the watchdogs remains a fundamental, if not the fundamental, question of the human condition. It is an issue with philosophical, theological, and political dimensions.

This is a counter-cultural position. It goes against much articulate liberal and religious sentiment. Yet I consider these often ungrounded sentiments about abolishing war to be themselves part of the problem of war’s dangers. General Douglas MacArthur’s tomb is in the old city hall in Norfolk, Virginia. I recently visited it. On the wall above his grave is a plaque with the memorable and eloquent words that this military commander spoke on the occasion of the Japanese surrender in 1945:
It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past — a world founded upon faith and understanding — a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish, for freedom, tolerance, and justice. . . . We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem is basically theological, and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, and literature, and all material and cultural developments in the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.
On reading these words, I was struck by how much they now appear to me to be part of the problem, not the solution, as I once thought.

“Justice, brains, and strength”

e thought that we had founded a system to prevent wars, especially small ones, in addressing theological and spiritual problems. MacArthur seemed to assume that such a perfect system could be established. But in this he was something of a utopian, not a realist. Since he spoke these words some 60 years ago, we have seen thousands of wars of varying degrees. The spirit and means whereby we believed many small wars could be stopped — the work of converting the whole world to a better “system”— actually resulted in little being done when needed on a scale that would be effective, often a small scale.

My argument derives from Jacques Maritain’s assertion that “justice, brains, and strength” can and should belong together.2 We need not collapse before tyranny or terrorism or those who sponsor either, but we must effectively do something about them. “Peace and dialogue” do not work in the absence of a force component. The more the reality of measured force is present, the more dialogue and peaceful means — including religious means — are present. In practice, this “doing” peace must include adequate and intelligent force. The intense concern that weapons of mass destruction not fall into the hands of Muslim or other leaders is not fanciful. Every holiday since 9/11, some email comes, warning of the possible use of “dirty bombs” in some American or world city. That they have not been used, I suspect, is more because those who would use them have actually been prevented by force. Units that would blow up major installations, if they could, do exist. All they lack are delivery capabilities.

Further, I argue that our main problems are not too much force, but too little. A peaceful world is not a world with no ready forces but one with adequate, responsible, and superior force that is used when necessary. The failure to have or use such forces causes terror and war to grow exponentially. Unused force, when needed at a particular time and place, ceases to be force. But force is meaningless if one does not know that he has an enemy or how this enemy works and thinks. That latter is a spiritual and philosophical problem, not a technical one. Many an adequately armed country has been destroyed because it did not recognize its real enemy. Nor is this an argument for force “for force’s sake.” It is an argument for force for justice’s sake. I am not for “eternal peace,” which is a this-worldly myth, but for real peace of actual men in an actual and fallen world. Peace is not a goal, but a consequence of doing what is right and preventing what is wrong and, yes, knowing the difference between the two.

Justice and force require one another in the actual world. Too often they are placed in opposition in a way that renders both unbalanced and ineffective. It is not a virtue to praise justice as if it need not be actually enforced or defended. The greatest crimes usually are grounded in a utopianism that is blind to living men, that does not see how to limit and control disruptive forces that continually arise in human life. Though I argue mainly about military force, the same argument includes police power. These are not substitutes for the virtue of justice, but this difficult virtue relies also on the existence and proper use of force for its existence. Contrary to much rhetoric, we do not live in a world in which diplomacy, dialogue, diversity, and law, however valuable, have replaced force. We can hopefully reach an adequate public order, but the failure to understand that law and dialogue need the presence of reasoned force ends up creating not more peace but less.

The failure to fight

n late spring, in Baltimore, I walked to the end of Chestnut Street where it meets Joppa Road. On one corner was a large official-looking residence called “Mission Helpers Center.” On both sides of its entrance gate were large blue and white signs that said, “War Is Not the Answer.” These placards recalled many too-simple slogans I have seen in recent years about war, often, like this one apparently, from religious sources: “War is obsolete.” “War is never justified.” “The answer to violence is not more violence.” “War does no good.” “No one wins a war.” “Love, not war.” “Diplomacy, not war.” “Dialogue, not war.” “Stop violence.” “Justice, not war.” “No war is legitimate.” “Everyone loses in war.” “War, Never Again.”

When I saw the “War Is Not the Answer” sign, I said to myself, “what is the question to which war is not an answer?” Is there no question to which war is the only sensible answer? Must we be pacifists and draw no lines in the sand? Does nothing ever need defending? Can we choose not to defend what needs defending and still be honorable? If war is not the “answer,” what is? How do we rid ourselves of tyrants or protect ourselves from ideologies or fanatics who attack us with their own principles and weapons, not ours?

Machiavelli advised that a prince should spend most of his time preparing for war. The prince was not pious except when it was useful to his staying in power. If we are this prince’s neighbors, do we take no notice of his preparations? Do we give him the answer he most wants to hear from us, namely, “war is not the answer”? Those who practice this doctrine of no war make easy targets. The prince thinks war is an answer. It can help him in his goal of acquiring and keeping power. We may have to suffer a defeat at his hands, but we should not choose to bring one on ourselves.

Though much carnage and chaos happen in any historic war, and on every side, still we cannot conclude from this that “war is not the answer.” It may not be the only answer. But no valid alternative to war can be a mere ungrounded velleity, a frivolous hope that nothing bad will happen no matter what we do or do not do. Any presumed alternative to war, by other supposedly more effective methods, has to stop what war seeks to prevent by its own reasoned use of measured force. The general opinion of most sensible men in most of history is that war certainly is one answer, even a reasonable answer, in the light of what would likely ensue without it. Not a few unfought wars have made things considerably worse. Not a few fought wars have made things better. The honor classically associated with war heroes is expressed in the proclamations: “Our cause is just.” “Give me liberty or give me death.” “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” “Walk softly but carry a big stick.”

We often, and rightly, ponder the horrors of war. Doing so is a growth industry particularly for those who do not choose to fight in them. Soldiers usually know more about the horrors of wars than journalists. They also know more about what it is like to live under a tyrannical system. The uncovering of gulags and concentration camps ought also to cause us to reflect deeply on what happens when unjust regimes acquire and remain in power. 9/11 could have been prevented with but a small use of force had we known that we had an enemy who would utterly surprise us by using passenger planes as weapons of war.

A follower of Nietzsche, who thought Platonism and Christianity had failed because both lauded weakness, will see a certain nobility to wars and power for their own dramatic sakes. Like many moderns, Nietzsche did not find any order in the universe except that imposed by his own will. Still, most sensible people can see that to prevent the rise of unlimited power or to remove it, once established, requires the legitimate use of adequate force against it. Often we perform this reflection about war’s atrocities in isolation from real situations and without balance, for peace is not simply the absence of war. “No war” can, and not infrequently does, end up meaning the victory of tyranny and the subsequent disarming of any opposition to itself. “No moral use of war” can, by the same logic, result in no freedom, no dignity.

We need more serious reflection on what happens, both to ourselves and to others who rely upon us, when we lose wars or when our failure to act causes something worse to happen. Those who cry “peace, peace” often have unacknowledged blood on their hands because they failed to use adequate force when needed; “To the victors go the spoils” is an ancient principle of fact, not rightness. Cowardice has never been considered a virtue. Nor has “turning the other cheek” served as an acceptable excuse for allowing some evil — one we could have stopped except that our theories or fears prevented us from trying — to continue or conquer. Not a few worthy things have been eradicated forever because a war was lost. Eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty and much else that is worthy.

In reading ancient history, as we should and for this very reason, we can still meditate with profit on the enormous cultural consequences of a success by Xerxes in Greece had Sparta and Athens not successfully defended themselves against his armies. Nonetheless, good causes do not always win wars; neither, to say the same thing, do bad causes always lose them. Fortune is difficult to conquer. Nor do its consequences guarantee justice. St. Paul, as Dawson reminds us above, even suggests that wars and the sword punish our wrongdoings. The pope observes that we live in a world in which we want to deny that we commit any wrongs or sins and hence we lack any impetus for correcting them within ourselves. Sins have dire consequences even if we call them virtues, as we often do.

Still, we are not free not to think about this consequence that failure to act can make things worse. Nor can we deny that there is a comparative difference between “bad” things and “terrible” things. We can be as immoral and as inhuman by not acting as by acting. The history of lost wars is as important as the history of victorious ones, perhaps more so. The idea of an absolutely warless world, a world “already made safe for democracy,” is more likely, in practice, to be a sign either of utopianism or of madness, and a world in which war is “outlawed” is more likely to mean either that we are no longer in the real world or that the devils and the tyrants — who allow us only to agree with them and do as they say — have finally won. We are naïve if we think that formal democratic procedures, lacking any reference to the content of laws, cannot have deleterious effects. A democratic tyranny is quite conceivable, many think likely, and on a global scale. Globalization is not neutral. Not a few of the worst tyrants of history have been very popular and have died peacefully in bed in their old age amidst family and friends.

More than anything else, the frontiers of most states of the world are where they are because of wars, won or lost. This is true even of, say, the relatively peaceful Canadian-American border, whose drawing, whose very existence, is related to the American Revolution, to the War of 1812, and to “54.40 or Fight!” The northern Mexican border does not include California, Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico, as it once did, because a war was lost. I have seen Mexican maps that still include these states within Mexican frontiers. This suggests that many Mexicans think present borders are unjust and that therefore we are not wholly at peace. Lord Acton thought that had the South won the American Civil War, it probably would have taken over Mexico.

The “evil empire” covered a quarter or more of the globe because of war and revolution. Ironically, it got its start when Lenin precipitously pulled out of bloody World War i to eradicate his domestic enemies on the right and the enemies of his Bolshevism on the left. The demise of the Soviet Union surprised all the social scientists in that it was not destroyed by war or by any force in their analytic methods. However, as we were reminded by the Reagan funeral, a major cause of the demise of communism, besides the spiritual one for which the Polish pope stood, was the massive American preparation for war, including nuclear war. This was sufficient to convince the Soviets finally to recognize communism’s own internal bankruptcy. Many, at the time, thought this buildup was itself “immoral.” Had it not occurred, the Soviet Union might well still be in existence and its demise might not have been so peaceful.

In the case of World War ii, we can surely thank the early unpreparedness and initial unwillingness of the French and English to engage in war for the fact that in the end a more lethal war had to be fought and could be won only with the aid of others. “Peace in our time,” the slogan of the British prime minister, led to World War ii. War was not an answer? What is the “answer” to terrorism if not war at some level? Terrorists, as they often testify, think that terrorism is a legitimate, even God-commanded duty. Is capitulation the answer? Roman history, in fact, is filled with such wars and capitulations.

It may well be true that noncombatant alternatives to war are always available, but there are things worse than war. Not to know what they are is tantamount to losing any real contact with or understanding of human experience or history. Not for nothing was the “history of war” studied by Machiavelli. Many “peaceful” alternatives to war are unhappy ones. One of them consists in being conquered by a hostile power, another in complete civilizational destruction. We read of Muslim and Mongolian armies before whose swords we would not like to fall, knowing that if we do, our culture, religion, and way of life, not to mention many of our lives, would disappear. No one in the decade before the sudden appearance of Mohammedan armies in the seventh century could have imagined the configuration of the world map today, a configuration in many areas due precisely to the permanent conquests of these earlier and later armies. The modern integrity of Europe is unimaginable without two victories over Muslim forces: one at Tours, one at Vienna.

A will to kill

he most lethal weapons are today turning out to be car bombs and ordinary passenger planes. The problem with nuclear weapons was never the weapons themselves but rather the will and purpose for which they might be used. In the retrospective light of the bombing of the World Trade Center, the series of antiwar documents produced during the 1980s by American Catholic bishops decrying nuclear war seem almost irrelevant. Such earlier considerations of “absolute weapons” were wholly out of touch with what was to be the problem of defense in the twenty-first century. The fact is, deterrence did work, however reluctant we may be, for ideological reasons, to admit it.

We do have a concern that “terrorists,” as we are wont to call them in lieu of calling them what they call themselves, will gain possession of nuclear weapons. We could reasonably suppose that communists did not want to be destroyed. We are not so sure about Muslim war planners. The “suicide bomber” may prove to be more lethal and more intellectually perplexing than any nuclear weapon ever was.

Nuclear and conventional weapons, in fact, have become so accurate, so downsized, so controlled, that all the elements of the just war theory devised by the most scrupulous moralist are in place and in operation. One might even argue that current American weaponry is constructed the way it is precisely in order to live up to just war concerns. Again, the problem is never the weapons themselves, but who uses them. The knowledge of how to make such weapons simply exists, along with the technology to make them. We cannot think these plans out of existence without thinking much of modern science out of existence. And we have no reason to think that present-day terrorists, who have a different religious philosophy, will not use nuclear weapons if they can, even if they destroy themselves in the process.

How do we deal with or even understand the “suicide bomber?” Just war theory is relatively useless in this area. What, after all, does a fully armed GI do in confrontation with a pregnant Muslim woman who has bombs strapped inside her dress and intends to blow him, herself, her baby, and dozens of others up? All the literature and normal understanding about “innocent women and children” have become, if not irrelevant, at least maddeningly difficult to apply in such increasingly common cases.

The answer to the question of why a Muslim man or woman will blow himself or herself up is not simply political or military. Aristotle said that if someone is willing to die in the process, no one can really prevent him from trying to kill us. Augustine had a similar problem with the fourth-century schismatic Donatists. A Muslim who blows himself up along with 15 others can pretty much rest assured that this type of weapon will not be used against his own people.

The real question is whether this current situation constitutes a new war of civilizations. Much vested interest is devoted to the proposition that it is not. Our leaders, both civil and religious, have been loath so to designate it as a civilizational war. Islam is said to be a religion of peace. To suspect that it is a threat on a much broader scale is one of those things that must be classified as “secret writing.” It goes against the dominant religious mood, namely, ecumenism, and against the liberal mode, namely, tolerance, according to which all issues can be resolved without war. But ecumenism and tolerance are not in accord with a certain Muslim viewpoint: The world, in their missionary view, ought to be Muslim even if by war, even by suicide bombings. War can be precisely “holy.” Until we can understand that, we simply will not be able to grasp the essence of the problem.

There is considerable talk both in the West and in certain sections of the Muslim world about making Islam over into politically acceptable forms without altering any of what are considered its basic beliefs. This radical reconstruction of Islam, which identifies the current military attacks as coming from a minority “terrorist” movement and not from Islam in any genuine form, is said to be the main “neoconservative” project.

One can, I think, defend this program on prudential grounds. No one, including the churches, is willing to examine in a serious way the truth claims of Islam, not only its own understanding of Allah and of Judaism and Christianity, but also its practiced way of life and the direct relation of its religion and its politics. Until this latter effort is undertaken in a much more serious way, the prudential approach can be justified as a holding operation. But what is ultimately behind the effort to provide models and forms of “democratic” and “free” political systems is the effort to undermine those teachings and customs of Islam that cause the problem, the first of which is the claim of the truth of Islamic revelation and its understanding of the absolute will of God as arbitrary. In this sense, MacArthur was right. Political problems often have theological import at their basis.

The Italian paper Il Giornale (May 26, 2004) published an interview with Caesare Mazzolari, bishop of Rumbek in the Sudan, a place where Christian-Muslim relations are those of war, war against the Christians. His remarks perhaps serve to contextualize this issue, particularly in the light of the Dawson thesis:
Q: Is there a clash of civilizations . . . ?

A: The Church has defeated communism but is just starting to understand its next challenge — Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it . . . .

Q: Some bishops in Italy have allowed chapels to be used as mosques.

A: It will be the Muslims who convert us, not the other way around. Wherever they settle down, sooner or later they end up becoming a leading political force . . . .

Q: Does it make sense to export our democracy to agricultural and sheep-herding societies that make no distinction between religion and politics?

A: No. This is idiotic. Islamic people base their decisions only and exclusively on the umma. They don’t even know what individual rights are.

This is a blunt analysis from someone located in a country where over 2 million people — Muslim dissidents as well as Christians — have been killed in Muslim attacks. Whether we look on it as the wave of the future or as an exceptional, isolated case will determine the kind of attitude we have toward war and the necessity for the retention and use of military power.

“Something inhuman”

My topic here, however, is not Islam but war. Islam is not the only civilizational problem, and it is not necessarily unified with itself. Western secularist ideology is as absolutist in its own way as Islam. Theorizing that the “terrorists” are merely a side-show, a tiny minority which will naturally pass out of existence, is an easy way out of considering the more basic problem of the civilizational movement and what to do about it. This consideration is based upon the notion that Islam is a confident civilizational movement, suddenly aware, thanks to the judgment of its more radical leaders, of the possibility of continuing its historic mission: spreading the religion by force or other means throughout the world.

The question of how to “disarm” or “dissuade” this expansion, which now has a demographic component through immigration into Western nations of low birth rates, is bound up with the question of the capacity and willingness of a nation to defend itself. And it is crucial that we disarm or destroy those who hold that it is legitimate to express a political position through means of “terrorism,” no matter how small or large we think their forces might be. We are in what is for us the paradoxical situation of realizing that “peaceful” means of dissuasion will not in fact always or automatically protect innocent people from the mission of these “terrorists,” as we insist on calling them, who look upon suicide bombing in their cause as a martyrdom and an entrance to heaven. The fact that this position seems preposterous to many of us is one of the reasons we cannot well deal with it.

The old realist assumption — attuned to the Fall and the natural difficulties of the practice of virtue — maintained that as the world improved in technological or political means, its potential for greater evil also increased. We would thus never be in a situation where some use of force or power would not be required to achieve whatever limited good was possible. A common, oft-heard theory about war today, by contrast, is that we have “grown” or progressed out of it. The assertion that war may still be necessary is looked upon as “anti-progressive,” a sin against “history.” No “reasonable” person can hold the view that war may be necessary. This “we-have-outgrown-war” position, with its Hegelian overtones, is an aspect of an evolutionary hypothesis which, generally speaking, holds that the world is getting morally better: We have learned to “overcome” problems with dialogue or discussion or psychological counseling, and war is no longer necessary and has little justification. Behind this view operates a theory of the world-state as the primary innerworldly purpose of mankind. Indeed, absent a transcendent purpose, it becomes the only purpose of mankind.

The framework of “world” or “global” government is now said to be already in place in the United Nations. Though that body was not erected to be a “world government,” no political controversy involving war, it is now claimed, can be decided outside of its jurisdiction. This argument rests upon a benign portrait of the United Nations and the ideological currents within it. But many of the un’s positions on life and economic questions are extremely troubling, as are its “missionary” efforts to impose these ideas on the world. It seeks to remove any consideration of national self-interest, or any unilateral decision to come to the aid of others evidently under attack. And though it may claim that neither truth nor good will ever have to be protected against it, logic suggests the United Nations should, and indeed would like to, absorb the world’s military capacity within itself. Further, United Nations citizenship and courts, the argument goes, should replace national citizenship and courts, with the ultimate appeal resting not in national but in international courts. International criminal and civil courts should be the primary arbitrators of justice within nations. International courts should claim immediate jurisdiction over all rights cases wherever they occur. Any appeal to national “self-interest” against their decisions will be looked upon as a violation of international law.

In his discussion of “restitution,” the primary act of justice in all its forms, Josef Pieper made the following observation:
The dynamic character of man’s communal life finds its image within the very structure of every act of justice. If the basic act of commutative justice is called “re-stitution,” the very word implies that it is never possible for men to realize an ideal and definitive condition. What it means is, rather, that the fundamental condition of man and his world is provisory, temporary, non-definitive, tentative, as is proved by the patchwork character of all historical activity, and that, consequently, any claim to erect a definitive and unalterable order in this world must of necessity lead to something inhuman.3

This “something inhuman” is what we are concerned about when we address the question of whether war is obsolete. The grounds of this assumption are that we actually do have in place the means to prevent war. The historic realism that argued that war would always be with us is now said to be surmounted.

In this regard, let me cite Herbert Deane’s summation of Augustine’s view of war: “Wars are inevitable as long as men and their societies are moved by avarice, greed, and lust for power, the permanent drives of sinful men. It is, therefore, self-delusion and folly to expect that a time will ever come in this world when wars will cease and ‘men will beat their swords into ploughshares.’”4 We are asked to believe that the institutions designed to replace the national state will not themselves be threats against freedom and justice. The question is whether the world and its inhabitants are better off with national states that can maintain their own judgments and forces. The answer, I believe, is that whatever the logic of the international state, its practice is too dangerous — both on the large scale and on the small.

Jean Bethke Elshtain has written, “I would argue that true international justice is defined as the equal claim of all persons, whatever their political location or condition, to having coercive force deployed in their behalf if they are victims of one or the many horrors attendant upon radical political instability.”5 What Elshtain implies is that there is and must continue to be room for the existence and use of force that understands and works for right order. I would maintain, therefore, that much of the thinking about the obsolescence of war is itself a major contributor to war, particularly to the new kinds of war that we see in the twenty-first century. It prevents quick and effective action. Without denying that this alternative can also be abused, we can never arrive at a clear concept of the problem if the mechanisms designed to address it include it.

Where does this leave the discussion? We are left with the need to see force and power as actual servants of justice. C. S. Lewis wrote in his essay “Why I Am Not a Pacifist:”

It is arguable that a criminal can always be satisfactorily dealt with without the death penalty. It is certain that a whole nation cannot be prevented from taking what it wants except by war. It is almost equally certain that the absorption of certain societies by certain other societies is a great evil. The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, of even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil . . . . The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs, which might result from submission, is certainly preferable. And I do not see any really cogent argument for this view.6

Lewis, as usual, had it about right. War is not the greatest evil, but at times the only means to prevent evil. This is true on both a large and small scale. What we are left with is that the effective use of force is still best and most properly left in the national state. This is not the war of all against all, but the war of those who can limit terrorism and tyranny when and where it occurs. The worst modern tyranny in the twenty-first century will not come from armies but from their lack, from the lack of capacity and courage to use them wherever they are needed to protect justice, freedom, and truth.

The real alternative to just war cannot be viable without including the necessity and ability to deal with those who do not know or listen to reason. Law enforcement does not work unless there is a more fundamental possibility of dealing with those who are bound by no concept of legal order as we understand it. There is no alternative to just war that does not depend on and include the possibility and the exercise, when reasonable, of just war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

1 Christopher Dawson, “The Catholic Attitude to War,” Tablet 169 (March 13, 1937).

2 See James V. Schall, “Justice, Brains, and Strength: Machiavelli and Modernity in Political Philosophy,” Jacques Maritain: The Philosopher in Society (Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 1-20.

3 Josef Pieper, An Anthology (Ignatius Press, 1989), 63.

4 Herbert Deane, Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (Columbia University Press, 1956), 155.

5 Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror (Basic Books, 2003), 168

6 C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Macmillan, 1965), 43

Thank God for James V. Schall, and the others who, at Georgetown, must in reading his piece, know that he is in the right. But they need to do more. They need to rescue the name "Georgetown" and the prestige which accrues to it, from being exploited by John Esposito, who directly or indirectly, is clearly a reciipient of Arab funds, and who, furthermore, has a long history of denying, omitting, explaining away, central elements in Islam, contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. This has to be brought to the attention of everyone at Georgetown, and everyone who thinks well, or would like to think well, of Georgetown.

One knows, in what is essentially a choice -- either Schall, and the truth, or Esposito, and nonsense and lies, where Pope Benedict would come out.

Who, reading this, knows people at Georgetown, faculty, students, alumni, anybody? Who will alert them? Who will try, not to shut down Esposito (that can't be done, he's there forever) at least take that Georgetown name, and that false prestige, away from him?

This has to be done, for Georgetown's sake.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 12:28 AM

poetess and jsla,

Excellent posts! Thanks.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 14, 2005 5:22 AM

Hugh,

Thanks for posting that. Esposito is a liar, huckster, and a traitor who needs to be exposed.

Posted by: Archimedes at December 14, 2005 5:41 AM

What is it with Catholic universities and the lust for Jihad?

Ray Kroc's widow gave a ton of dough to establish a peace institute at Notre Dame. Naturally, they went out and hired a bunch of Arab Moslem Jihadists.

Trouble is, most are on the outs with the FBI and they're having trouble getting visas to let them into South Bend to preach hate and murder.

The moral? It ain't easy ruining a university. This is tough work. Ruining a fine institution isn't accomplished overnight. It could take several years of determined effort to ruin Notre Dame...

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 14, 2005 11:39 AM

"Ray Kroc's widow gave a ton of dough to establish a peace institute at Notre Dame.."
-- from a posting above

She wasn't evil. She was an innocent. She was naive. She had no idea -- how many rich people do -- that such words as "peace" and "justice" nowadays are used by, have been appropriated by, people who are not so much for "peace" as for an absence of self-defense by the Western world, that the word "justice" is used in a highly tendentious manner and for some remarkable reason tends not merely to express neutrality between the aggression of Jihad and those wishing to stave it off, but even sympathy and support for those conducting Jihad (few organizations with the words "peace" and "justice" in their title are likely to have any understanding or sympathy for what the Israelis face every day).

The very idea of "Peace Studies" and "Peace Institutes" which, theoretically, no one can object to -- who can be against peace -- has turned out to be dangerous. For it is an abstract "Peace," an injust "Peace," a "Peace" that for many of us would only be a "Peace of the grave." The kind of people who are naturally hired to "do research" (whatever that might be) and to "teach" and do "outreach" (one more weasel word) at such places will inevitably be of the Scott-Appleby (the devout supporter and admirer of Tariq Ramadan, whom he continues to regard as unfairly maligned -- but you won't catch Scott Appleby looking into the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islam, not a thousand years ago, not five hundred years ago, and certainly not today).

The inattention to the clearly-stated aims of Adolf Hitler, and to the behavior of the Nazis within Germany, astounds today. We think it could scarcely have been worse.

But it could. Had there been the kind of morally-neutral, or even "every-side-has-a-point" school of journalism, had people of the Peter-Jennings variety been around in those days, and not H. V. Kaltenborn, Elmer Davis, Pierre van Paasen, and later Edward R. Murrow, do you doubt that there would have been sympathetic interviews with Adolf Hitler, possibly with a little tour of Berchtesgaden with those wunderbar views, and shots of Hitler playing with a dog, or receiving flowers from local blond-braided children so eager to express their devotion, and possibly there would even be mention of how strange it is that all those people who say bad things about Mr. Hitler don't realize that he's a vegetarian, and just how do they reconcile that little fact with their wild charges against him?

And similarly, do you doubt that the Halifax-Chamberlain-Daladier-Lindbergh shool of appeasement or even secret sympathy, would have been stronger, or less strong, had there been, in those days, all sorts of "Peace Institutes" and "Peace Academies" and "Peace this and Peace that."

Refugees and survivors of the nightmoare Experiment in Soviet Living are well aware of how that word "Peace" now sticks in the craw, for it was the main slogan or lozyng of the Soviet State:

Da zdravstvuet mir. Long LIve Peace.
Or Miru mir -- Peace to the World.

What that "Miru mir" (which would be spelled out even by bushes, in the careful trimming of propagandistic topiary) really meant was not "
Peace to the World" but rather -- All Power to the Soviet State.

What those goddam Peace Institutes mean, Kroc-funded -- and what a crock -- or not, is not real peace, but the phony propagandistic Peace, the Roger-Fisher "Getting-to-Yes" "
Negotiation Project" peace, where everyone has a point, everyone has a valid point, no one is wrong, no moral judgemnts should or can be made, and let's get together and feel alright.

Not Churchill. Not Clemenceau. No -- Rodney King and Bobby McFerrin, as channeled by the Scott Applebys and assorted "Christian Peaceworkers" now giving the word "Peace" such a bad name when it did nothing to deserve it -- hijackers of a word, distorters of a concept.

They deserve to be exposed, mocked, and punished in the outer court of public opinion, and the inner court of individual consciousnesses.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 12:03 PM

"The inattention to the clearly-stated aims..."
-- posted by Hugh

This phenomenon lies at the crux of modern propoganda. Again, I genuflect to Marshall McLuhan for having predicted all this nearly 50 years ago. This mis-focusing of attention is an explosive problem festering among us.

"... that such words as 'peace' and 'justice' nowadays are used by, have been appropriated by, people..."
-- posted by Hugh

And such appropriation has now evolved into a practical science. This is a mojo first worked by governments, then by MSM outlets, and now by troublemakers.

Good essay. Add oil money to all this deflectionary bullcrap and you have a recipe for disaster. Watch the disaster. Scream into the howling winds of false words and fail to avert the disaster. Witness the disaster.

Or is there an antidote to be found?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 14, 2005 1:22 PM

thanks for Hugh's clarifying of the problem of the use of the word "peace" or even "world Peace" as slogan. There is no substitute for knowledge and for doubting simplistic explanations, especially in a time when lies are constantly being manufactured to manipulate public opinion. Intelligent people simply have to study history and literature, and know at least one foreign language, and not believe media claims at face value.

Posted by: Eliyahu at December 14, 2005 1:23 PM

"Harvard and Georgetown gratefully took the handout. Georgetown president John DeGioia was almost groveling when he declared in a statement, 'We are deeply honored by Prince Alwaleed's generosity.'"
-- from a posting above

Why did he feel compelled to say "we are deeply honored"? What makes Georgetown "honored" or "deeply honored" to be selected, for obvious reasons (propinquity to the government and to national correspondents and network reporters), as part of the Saudi campaign to suppress the attempts, here and there, to shine a little light on Islam? He, John DeGoia, can only redeem himself by NOT taking the money and letting Esposito get his sinister hands on it, but by using it to build up a collection of real, as opposed to misleading, sources and studies on Islam. If such a collection does not include all of the Western scholars included in "The Legacy of Jihad," and if Georgetown cannot figure out a way to create a position devoted to the very subject of which Bat Ye'or treated in "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," then it is all guff and nonsense.

As for Harvard, Summers must be wary of the Graham-Eck-Ahmad-Vogel-Mottaheddeh (he should add a little more Benchley than that single quote about "there are two kinds of people" to his own outlook, break free of his mind-forged manacles or fear of offending colleagues and "professional reputation" (in the end, it is only those who do break through, who kick over the traces of MESA Nostra, who will be able to face themselves in the morning, and perhaps attempt to emulate his mother's discriminating fidelity to detail the next time he misrepresents the nature of Jihad in an Op/Ed article). Summers has backed down before, and he doesn't like to make too much trouble for himself. Having suffered one self-inflicted defeat and retreat, he may lack the self-confidence to challenge supposed "scholars of Islam" now ensconced on nhis faculty, in their choice of others to swell the apologist ranks. But this is now his chance to redeem himself: to take the Saudi money, and do with it nothing of which those sinisteer Saudis would approve. Yes, I know that would queer Harvard's chances for receiving more injections of Saudi cash. So? Do you want to create larger numbers of apologists and propagandists "across the curriculum" (the modish phrase now used for so many things -- it began with "writing across the curriculum" and has spread everywhere), whose misinformation would require an even larger sum, a greater number of faculty telling the truth, to undo.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 2:19 PM

Serious stuff!

This is wheat makes the comments section invaluable.

Thanks, Hugh!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 14, 2005 4:46 PM

I agree sheik. Well done Hugh.

Anyways, here is another article I came across:

J. Grant Swank, Jr.
I wager that when the Islamic studies are upped at Harvard and Georgetown Universities they will be biased for liberal take.
I dare the curricula committee to really tell the truth about Islam to those academic communities’ students.
Twenty million is given to Harvard and Georgetown Universities’ powers-that-be to set up courses to enhance Islamic studies in America. So it is that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a Saudi businessman and member of the Saudi royal family, handed over the gifts.
He is said to be a liberal Muslim. I assume that means that he would not enter into an “honor killing.” I presume he would not endorse sleeper cells in the US that are out to implode our republic...
http://conservativeposts.us/v-web/b2/index.php?p=1109&c=1

Posted by: AngryMuppet at December 15, 2005 3:03 AM