OK, President Obama spoke at an Islamic mosque yesterday.  I say “so what.”  But hear me out.  I have no issue with him speaking to any religious group in his capacity as president of the United States.  Even what he said, at least as reported, was not particularly problematic. He said for example, that Islam had been part of American history since African slaves were brought to the colonies.  That is true.  Now if he had gone further to say that Islamic religion and culture has had a profound influence in America, I would say he is just historically wrong.  But he apparently didn’t go that far.

He also said that Thomas Jefferson had called for toleration of Islam, which is true, and that Jefferson had as a result been called a “Mohammedan,” which is also true (that is, that he had been called Islamic—not that he was one).  OK, no big deal I say.

President Obama then went on the say, as is his usual mantra, that Islam is a religion of peace, and cited the derivation of the word from “Salam” as some evidence.  On this his statement was problematic.  From its inception, it has not been in general particularly peaceful.  The life of Muhammed himself was not peaceful but filled with consistent battle and war and conquest.  This continued after his death from the 8^th century well into the 17^th century, when Islamic troops were finally defeated by Europeans after incursions all the way to Vienna.  But peace still was not the norm.  In areas not controlled by Europe we see continued internal strife.  When the Middle East and Africa became colonies, the peace came but it was uneasy and sometimes erupted to the surface.  When Israel became a nation, war ensued and has had a long and sporadic history.  All this not to mention the rise of terror groups within Islam—Muslim Brotherhood and onward.  Not exactly peaceful.  President Obama added that ISIS (the latest terrorist manifestation) was not Islamic.  On that he is also wrong.  First, they self-define themselves as Islamic.  Second, their official “theology” is certainly Islamic, though at points a definite variation from mainstream Islam.  I haven’t heard scholars who study church history say that heretics or radical and violent heretics were not part of Christendom—albeit a distorted variant.  All religions have their mainstream and their fringe, but they are both still, broadly speaking, the same root—just different branches with different fruit (bad fruit sometimes, pointing to bad people to be sure, who, for example in Christian theology were not personally believers).  At any rate, the president was off here.  Of course most Muslims would not resort to violence and terrorism, but if only a small percentage do, it is till a serious problem, which cannot be swept under the rug by turning the tables on some Christians.

He also seemed to be saying that Christians in America were labeling all Muslims as terrorists, that is, they hated all Muslims.  That is a pretty serious charge.  Some Americans have not been careful to preserve individual justice from collective guilt.  Every individual has to be seen in his own right as a moral agent.  So I too would be careful to label all Muslims as violent terrorists.  But at the same time, I do not believe these represent a very large group.  Most Americans understand the difference.  But Americans are also afraid that if their government doesn’t even make an attempt to screen out the violent from the non-violent, the result could be catastrophic.  The president overstated his case.

In the end however, this talk will make little difference, either for promoting good relations between Muslims and others or for chastising Christians.  Once again, by making such an issue out of it rhetorically, he divides instead of healing.  But I am happy he did moderate his speech a bit at least.

One more thing.  Some have reported that this particular mosque in Baltimore had harbored or had entertained radical Islamic teaching.  I don’t know.  But it might have been the better part of wisdom had the president chosen a more “secularized” mosque.