Offensive war does, of course, play a big part in Islamic history. This is because while offensive war against non-Muslims is not mandatory, if the non-Muslims are not at the time fighting with Muslims, nevertheless any war to subjugate non-Muslims to Muslim rule is praiseworthy. Yet, the decision to wage offensive war rests with the Muslim caliph; ordinary Muslims do not have the authority to call other Muslims to an offensive war against unbelievers.

As far as I can tell, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all agree that a believer should obey the laws of the state he is in, regardless of the faith of the state. The only exception is where a state law conflicts with the laws of the faith, in which case the latter takes precedence. This includes if a non-Muslim state is persecuting Muslims, in which case the Islamic principle of defending Islam must overrule loyalty to that state.

The big difference between Islam and Judaism on the one hand, and Christianity on the other, is that in the former, religious leaders have complete authority in determining whether or not Muslims or Jews may obey unbelieving rulers. Christian leaders, the bishops, do not have authority to require disobedience to the secular authorities except where the secular authorities are commanding Christians to sin.

Islam has this obligation to wage war, but as I pointed out, this obligation can only be fulfilled where there is a Muslim leader with authority to command Muslims in battle. In Judaism, there isn’t an obligation to wage war as such, but there is an obligation to obey the Jewish leaders in any conflict between Jews and Gentiles, and to refuse obedience to any Gentile authorities in cases of such conflict. In Christianity, refusal to obey secular authorities is only mandated where the Christian is being forced to commit sin. So, among the three religions, Christianity has the strongest teachings on loyalty to the state. But even here, loyalty is conditional on the requirements of the faith.

I think you’re referring to Kierkegaard in regard to mercy:

http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com/2009/11/all-saints-day-2009.html

Are you one of those John Robb Global Guerrilla/Sharon Asnyk Causabon’s Book/Rob Patterson Resilient Community cultists?

Justice isn’t slamming a bunch of people in jail or exacting vengeance with firepower, it’s found in seeking mercy for those who are abused by those who control capital and political power.

@ GOM & Aaron — kingdom and tribe are still with us, and, no, they do not translate to nation-state. That is the part of our problem in Afghanistan- no? The nation-state of Israel is a nation-state; it is not historically or religiously synonymous with the people of Israel. God’s Israelites, so to speak, are scattered about the earth in Jerusalem, but also in Johannesburg or Juneau, just as God’s other children are. The people of God are sprinkled about with little regard for the ever-shifting crayon lines we insist on drawing on maps.

My loyalty is to a transnational kingdom; the kingdom of God. I live in a nation, but in an age of global guerrillas and transnational corporations just what does state or nation mean? And what loyalty do I owe it? Actually, I *live* in a much smaller sphere, a neighborhood defined by ecology and economy that doesn’t pay any attention to municipal or state boundaries. To that tribe I am loyal, because in that sphere I can show mercy and do good.

Your arrogant overconfidence betrays your insecure doubt.
If his legacy was so wonderful it would be self evident and you would not be here defending him like some crazed basiji.
Many evil things in the World have been popular, it does not make them right or good. As for world popularity my guess would be that indiffirence or ignorance would win over either candidate.

How AK is remembered among the shia is one thing, but outside the perspective of faith AK will more likely be remembered more for his theories of government, his intolerant teaching of Islam and his muderous persecution of the Bahais in Iran, not to mention anyone deemed a regime opponent.

Oh and let us not forget his imperialistic attempt to silence free thought and speach in the World by ordering the murder of Salmon Rushdy for writing a comedic novel. Khomeini is the face of an inolerant, violent and imperalistic Islam. (not do mention didactic and humorless)

In the longer term say 100 years I believe that Kohmeini’s political doctrines will do for reputation of theocracy what communism did for the reputation of central government. The signs are already there …

a. Bush was perceived as a fellow Christian and used the language of liberation to explain his wars.

b. While the wars can be seen as aggression, the actual role of the vast number of troops is “peace keeping.” That is, they patrol and guard while being shot at by Muslims. It’s natural therefore for their folks back home to see them as patriotic, long suffering professionals. And within the limits of their experience they are. The policy is anti-Christian but soldiers are not.

As I said before, there is a growing gulf between the goals of the managerial elite who run this country and mostly Christian soldiers, workers, farmers, etc. who supply the manpower.

You go on to mention several instances of very rough treatment engaged in by our government. It’s pointless to argue that the US never killed innocents. But we did fight according to rules that were generally accepted by other Christian nations and did attempt to restrain the conduct of troops. We also have allowed for conscientious exemption and our medics treated the enemy.

My point was that the actions of our government were loosely within the framework of accepted Christian norms. As you point out however, as the Twentieth Century progressed and our Republic became more secular, our war aims and methods became more like those of our foes.

Of course no apology, and no nerve hit – credit where credit is due for a quality troll job. The troll detection filters need constant updating and you helped (hint – the handle isn’t an Armenian name, it’s an adjective).

I must have hit a nerve. No apologies.

“Maybe for the Westernized Iranian diaspora who have long forgotten about their identity and culture, but for Iranians in Iran, he is their hero.”

I have no idea how to determine the degree to which this is true, but it doesn’t strike me as impossible by any means.

On the other hand:

“Khomeini would also win any world popularity contest against any US president. ”

Yeah, right. Pity – I had entertained hopes that your comments might provide useful alternate perspective, but evidently you’re just a better than average troll. Still, congrats for the better than average part.

Elvis Elvisberg: “That is only true if Christianity is a pure tribal label, severed from any moral concerns”

Which is to say that it’s pretty close to being true for Rod.

Gordianus:
“My guess is that Dreher meant that Christians have until recently been able to assume that the USA would conduct itself along generally Christian lines. This is less and less true, but for many Conservatives the desire to pretend that it is true, is irresistible. ”

Let’s see:

You’re a soldier, and told to sweep through an indian village (whether or not they attacked you) and kill everybody, including women and children.

You’re a soldier in several countries and eras, and told to kill anybody who resists the ‘our SOB’ government the US is setting up there.

You’re prepping bombers with white phosphorous and napalm, which will be spread over several square miles of enemy city.

You’re preparing nuclear weapons to be ready to launch in a few minutes (i.e., so short a time that neither the people of the USA nor the leadership will be involved); those weapons are generally targeted as ‘counter-population’ methods.

You’re spraying herbicide over S. Vietnam or Central/South America, in a way which will kill the crops of thousands of poor peasants on each mission.

You’re in Vietnam, as part of the 9th ID, in operation ‘Speedy Express’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express). The sort of operation which comes back with far, far more kills than weapons captured. Or any other unit which has been told “If it’s dead and Vietnamese, it’s VC” (and which goes in the enemy body count).

You’re in Iraq, trashing the evil government of Saddam Hussein, but spending the next year or so trashing local efforts to organize anything out of the chaos, resulting in a chaotic h*ll-stew of criminal gangs and ethnic/sectarian religious militias slaughtering large number of civilians, while Al Qaida happily takes advantage of the clusterf*ck to kill many more. After a few years of that, you form an alliance with a cooperative set of nasty Islamic fundamentalist leaders, who engage in a vicious ethnic cleansin campaign (but I’m sure that US leaders will deny any knowledge or involvement with that).

You’re in Afghanistan, after a genuinely righteous campaign against Al Qaida and the Taliban, you basically dial down the forces to the level of ’cause chaos, but not settle the matter’ for several years, while the original Taliban survivors and locals who hate what you’re doing organize a guerrilla war. At which point you’ll dial up the forces to the level of ‘trash the place, but not settle things’ (because that’d take a half-million soldiers for a decade, in the best of cases).

And that’s just a start.

Maybe for the Westernized Iranian diaspora who have long forgotten about their identity and culture, but for Iranians in Iran, he is their hero.

Khomeini would also win any world popularity contest against any US president. It also should be noted that US presidents and politicians have far more innocent blood on their hands than Khomeini.

My values are not your values. Khomeini is bad or good depending on your values. But from where I sit he was long term bad for the Iranian people.

Your translation is better. The ancient state or kingdom was often not national at all in anything like the modern sense.