I really, really like Oxblog. Josh Chafetz notes that I am his blogchild, since it is from him that I learned what a fine blog should be. (Thanks, Dad!) And they are smart folks, even though I don't always agree with them.

Today, David Adesnik does something strange with Charles Krauthammer's column in yesterday's Washington Post.

Krauthammer manages not to be a blazing fool in yesterday's editorial. No, really! This, in itself, is important. But what he argues is this: the current American discussion over whether or not Islam is inherently violent or peaceful is a red herring. Religious traditions are internally complex. What matters for a contemporary evaluation of Islam, according to Krauthammer, is that Islam has "bloody borders." Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is real. Islamic extremism has led to the worst violence on the world scene today, from NYC through Nigeria to Pakistan and beyond.

Krauthammer gives two basic causes for the ascendance of islamic extremism and violence: (1) a deep sense of cultural humiliation (as in, even the South Koreans can become powerful, so why can't we?), and (2) the inability of the overwhelming majority of peaceful muslims to stand up to islamic extremists.

Fair enough. For David Adesnik, Krauthammer is saying that "Islam has given its answer," presumably to the question of whether or not it is a predominantly peaceful religion. I gather that for David, "Islam" has answered the question in the negative.

It seems to me that the reason why Krauthammer's article doesn't suck is that he resists precisely the conclusion that "Islam" has decided anything. Or maybe it's my own wishful reading of Krauthammer. But as far as I can see it, the overwhelming danger in American discourse on Islam is that we will conclude that there is a "clash of civilizations," that "Islam has given its answer," and that what remains is to fight those bloody border conflicts in order to win them. Krauthammer believes that there is a clash of civilizations, but he also admits that Islam is internally complex. He should take the next step. With respect to the multiple faces of Islam in Turkey, Iran, and Indonesia (to name a few), surely a fine-grained sensibility is necessary, if we are to respond appropriately to developments in those countries themselves.

Plus, isn't it weird that we even are asking the question, "is Islam peaceful?" Krauthammer doesn't dwell on this point, but he should. To me, the question, "is Islam peaceful?" sounds a lot like the earlier American questions, "can catholics be good democrats?" or "are asians fit for democracy?" Such questions tell us more about our own fears than they do about the phenomena themselves.