Understanding Islam, And Understanding The Power And Fervor Of Belief

Folks, one thing I have learned over my 67 years of life is this: people who hold no firm beliefs can never fully understand people who do—and people who hold deep beliefs know how difficult it is to make believers abandon them.

That reality is why I believe President Trump must make any conflict with Iran a fall-of-the-Ottoman-Empire moment.

Before explaining why, consider the words of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1942:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males… to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world… Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all… Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword… The sword is the key to Paradise.”

Whether one agrees with him or not, Khomeini was articulating something that many modern Western observers struggle to grasp: belief that is absolute and backed by a willingness to sacrifice.

History provides powerful examples of what that kind of conviction looks like.

In 2013, Pope Francis canonized the Martyrs of Otranto, eight hundred men killed in southern Italy in 1480 after the Ottoman capture of the city. Their story is not widely known today, but it should be.

When the Ottoman army took Otranto, the surviving male inhabitants—exhausted, beaten, and starving—were brought before the Ottoman commander Gedik Ahmed Pasha. They were given a simple choice: convert to Islam or die.

To persuade them, the pasha ordered an Italian apostate priest to preach to the prisoners, urging them to renounce Christianity in exchange for favor and protection.

Instead, a tailor named Antonio Primaldo stepped forward and spoke for the prisoners. According to the chronicles, he declared:

“My brothers, until today we have fought to defend our country and our lives. Now it is time to fight to save our souls for the Lord… since He died on the cross for us, it is fitting that we should die for Him, standing firm in the faith.”

The prisoners answered with one voice that they too were ready to die for Christ.

The next morning they were marched through the smoking ruins of the city to the Hill of Minerva outside Otranto. There, one by one, they were executed in full view of the others. Primaldo was chosen as the first to kneel before the sword. When the blade fell, chronicles recorded a striking event: his body supposedly remained standing even after decapitation. According to the account, the executioners could not force it to the ground. One stunned executioner converted on the spot and was immediately executed as well.

The killings then continued until all eight hundred men were dead.

Eight hundred ordinary men—laborers, craftsmen, fathers—were offered a simple bargain: renounce their faith and live.

All eight hundred refused.

Massacres were not unusual in medieval warfare. What made Otranto different was the reason these men died. They were not executed for resisting the conquerors or for political rebellion. They were killed because they refused to convert—and because their faith made them impossible to intimidate.

Their deaths occurred only twenty-seven years after the fall of Constantinople. At the time, many Europeans believed the Ottoman conquest of Italy—and perhaps all of Christendom—might follow.

The episode illustrates something modern commentators often fail to recognize: belief systems shape behavior in ways that diplomacy, incentives, or pressure cannot easily overcome.

There are those today who argue that opposition to Islam is simply ignorance or prejudice. History suggests the issue is more complicated.

In 1829, John Quincy Adams wrote:

“The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God… The command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory when it can be made effective.”

And in 1899, Winston Churchill observed:

“Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith… No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

These observations, controversial as they may sound today, reflect a recurring historical concern: that Islam has often functioned not merely as a personal faith but as a political and civilizational system. Unlike many other religions, Islam traditionally links theology, law, and governance. Muslims widely believe the Koran is the literal word of God, making revision or reinterpretation extraordinarily difficult. Even within Islam, competing sects have often fought violently over interpretation and authority.

The political power of Islam receded after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had served for centuries as the dominant Islamic political authority, but in the twentieth century movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood revived the idea that Islam is not merely a religion but a comprehensive political order meant to govern society.

In other words, the civilizational contest never truly disappeared.

Which brings us back to belief.

The men of Otranto believed so deeply in their faith that they accepted death rather than renounce it. The Ottoman soldiers who executed them believed just as deeply that they were carrying out a divine command.

When belief confronts belief at that level, compromise becomes nearly impossible and history shows that such conflicts are rarely resolved by negotiation alone. They are resolved when one side finally loses the power—and the confidence—to impose its vision on the world.

That is why moments like the fall of the Ottoman Empire matter.

They mark the point where a political system built on an idea finally loses the ability to enforce it—and that is the kind of moment history sometimes demands.