Islam and moral equivalence

http://www.presenceofmind.net/ ^ | November 26, 2002 | Greg Swann

[Greg Swann]

Islam and moral equivalence by Greg Swann

Start with this from The Washington Times: Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said yesterday the news media and political leaders have failed to educate Americans about violence in the Koran and in Islamic history and wishes President Bush had never said that "Islam is a religion of peace." First, it is true that reporters and politicians have not adequately detailed the violence in the Koran and in Islam's history. But second, that by itself is not of any particularly immediate interest. Quibbling moral-equivalizers can, and instantly do, point out the nearly identical calls to violence in Judaic and Christian apocrypha, and to the violent history rationalized by those texts. But still third, President Bush is obviously wrong in saying "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Islam means peace". Not because the Koran is violent, and not because the Muslims of antiquity were violent. He is wrong because Islam is a creed of systemic violence right here and right now. The Washington Times also says: Mr. Robertson's comments in the past year have been a major part of the public debate on how a predominantly Christian nation responds to a foreign enemy with Islamic roots. And that much is tragedy. Not that Robertson is taking another dent in his damaged reputation, but that the only consistent cultural opposition to Islam is coming from TV-preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Islam does not mean "peace". Islam, an Arabic word with a very precise definition, means: "Submission to the will of Allah." A Muslim is a person who submits to the will of Allah. "Yeah, so what?" says the pluralist West. "Let 'em worship how they want to." The problem is that Muslims cannot let us worship as we might want to--or not at all, if we choose. To be a Muslim is to submit to the will of Allah, and the will of Allah is that everyone must submit to the will of Allah. President Bush says that most Muslims want to live and worship in peace. This is undoubtedly true. The question is, what will 'most Muslims' do in the presence of Jihadi warriors making the demand that Islam has always made, submit or die? We know the answer, don't we? They may not join the Jihad, but they will not oppose it, either. They cannot oppose it, not and continue to be Muslims. Two types of people can say, "You have the right to refuse to submit to the will of Allah." Those two types of people are non-Muslims and former-Muslims. No practicing, observant, non-apostate Muslim can say those words, because to say them is the essence of Islamic apostasy. And thus the moral equivalency argument fails on two grounds: First, while Judeo-Christian and Islamic apocrypha and history might be similarly if not equally violent, only Islam systematically deploys its apocrypha to rationalize violent outrages in the present day. The quibbling equivalizer's counter to this is to cite abortion clinic bombings and random acts of violence against particular Muslims. These events are not sanctioned by secular or religious authorities, but even if they were, they pale in comparison to the slaughter effected in the name of Islam every day. Thousands were murdered in New York and Washington, hundreds in Bali, hundreds more in Nigeria, dozens of innocents are killed every week in Israel, and all this carnage is sanctioned and financed by theocratic Islamic states. Second, there is no faith or doctrine of the West that demands universal submission--on pain of murder. It is not the job of Christians or Jews to defend the West. That task belongs to the philosophers, who so far have abstained from acting. But we don't need contemporary philosophers to bear a load that is obviously too heavy for them. We stand on the shoulders of giants, after all. The West is pluralistic and secular and tolerant. Not always, but as a matter of consistent policy, with the exceptions being regarded as aberrations and crimes. By contrast, Islam is universalist, theocratic and inherently intolerant. The derision by the politically correct of Robertson and Falwell notwithstanding, it is nevertheless true that Islam is a warrior culture. It was born in war, and it remains committed to holy war down to the present day. Unreconstructed, unreformed, unrepentant. Individual Muslims may seek to live and worship in peace. But their creed--and the theocratic states seeking to advance that creed--does, must and will pursue universal submission to the will of Allah. By persuasion if possible. By coercion if not. And by murder if all else fails. Islam is a religion of war. To equate it in any way with the West is not just an error but an abomination.

[Greg Swann]

VIST MY NEW WEBLOG: http://www.presenceofmind.net/

gswann@primenet.com
http://www.presenceofmind.net/ (last updated 11/26/02)

Permission is explicitly granted to repost/reprint unmodified.

[Post Toasties]

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said yesterday the news media and political leaders have failed to educate Americans about violence in the Koran and in Islamic history and wishes President Bush had never said that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Robertson and the author make a very good point here. I would never, as a non-Muslim, refer to Islam as a 'religion of peace', since Islam defines itself as being at war with all parts of the earth not part of the Ummah.

To avoid giving the appearance of being duped, I would either keep silent on this subject or systematically deplore and oppose all aspects of Islam that promote violence, as Robertson is properly and bravely doing.

[per loin]

Two types of people can say, "You have the right to refuse to submit to the will of Allah." Those two types of people are non-Muslims and former-Muslims.

According to Islam, no one has the right to be a former-Muslim. Muslims are supposed to murder those who leave this religion of peace.

[meandog]

Robertson and the author make a very good point here. I would never, as a non-Muslim, refer to Islam as a 'religion of peace', since Islam defines itself as being at war with all parts of the earth not part of the Ummah.

Before we get so far into Islam-bashing that we can't recover, let us remember the Biblical command of Herem (to slaughter all peoples in the Promised Land) given to Joshua...it was made by the Old Testament God that fundamentalist Bible literalists as Robertson, Falwell, Swaggart and their ilk so like to point out when meting out proclamations of punishment in their definitions of sin. Yes, the Koran is bizarre in some of its dictates and laws but so too, IMHO, is the Bible's Book of Leviticus!

[truth_seeker]

You suppose author Greg Swann will get a fatwa on his head, for the article?

[Post Toasties]

Let's see: you're giving parity to an after-the-fact Biblical era description of a specific command whose effects were necessarily circumscribed in both space and time given to a single person to execute, no matter how deplorable its consequences to hateful Islamic writings that incite genocidal policies in the here and now on a worldwide basis that have already resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people and promise to at least do the same again as well as threaten to entail the destruction of civilizations and peoples?

I see little basis for comparison in any real world sense.

[meandog]

Let's see: you're giving parity to an after-the-fact Biblical era description of a specific command whose effects were necessarily circumscribed in both space and time given to a single person to execute, no matter how deplorable its consequences to hateful Islamic writings that incite genocidal policies in the here and now on a worldwide basis that have already resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people and promise to at least do the same again as well as threaten to entail the destruction of civilizations and peoples?

Not a single person, but the whole of ancient Israel's leaders (remember, God gave all the land from the great river of Egypt (Nile) to the great river of Babylon (Euphrates)... and the Hebrews were to put to the sword all those, including women and children and animals, who occupied it--the reason being was that God did not want the Israelites to take booty. Personally, I believe that Moses got much of what The Almighty wrong when he set about defining the heavenly orders, and that's one reason why Christ came and clarified much of what we Christians (with the possible exception of Mssrs. Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart) believe!

[Post Toasties]

You know, Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart are more to be admired than otherwise for placing their very lives on the line to speak out on what they believe is true. There is nothing to fear in what they say about Islam; it is essentially true.

I post this as an agnostic, btw.

[Greybird]

You suppose author Greg Swann will get a fatwa on his head, for the article?

Do arrogant, bloviating Catholics typically get a fatwa? I doubt it.

[Hank Kerchief]

When you push aside principles to base a discussion on the blunt, superficial expediency of the "right here and right now" then you open a can of worms that's available to the enemy, too.

The context was the comparison of religions, and the difference between the continuous essential violent nature of Islam as opposed to the sporadic anamolous violence of other religions.

You comment is completely out-of-context.

Hank

[meandog]

You know, Robertson, Falwell and Swaggart are more to be admired than otherwise for placing their very lives on the line to speak out on what they believe is true. ...placing their lives on the line? Ha! Nothing could be further from the truth. Though Robertson somehow made it through Marine bootcamp his Congress-serving old man, as former Silver Star winner Pete McCloskey pointed out, stepped in to land him an embassy job in Japan while his less-fortunate Marine buddies were dying while fighting off Chinese hordes in Korea's "Frozen Chosin". I do, however, give Robertson credit for wearing a uniform, but both Swaggart and Falwell are both "Chickenhawks"!

[MoGalahad]

"But second, that by itself is not of any particularly immediate interest. Quibbling moral-equivalizers can, and instantly do, point out the nearly identical calls to violence in Judaic and Christian apocrypha, and to the violent history rationalized by those texts."

Moral equivalency is being falsely applied here. Neither the Judaic nor Christian faiths are steeped in the blood that the Islamic faith is. Holy war (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is a concept unique to Islam. Wars have been conducted by Jews and Christians strictly in self defense against totalitarian regimes. If you cannot see the distinction then we probably have no common ground for discussion. And don't bring up the example of the crusades because those were not a 'Christian' response, especially in view of the fact that many Christians died at the hands of the crusaders.

[tlrugit]

Before we get so far into Islam-bashing that we can't recover, let us remember the Biblical command of Herem (to slaughter all peoples in the Promised Land) given to Joshua...it was made by the Old Testament God that fundamentalist Bible literalists . . .

Yes, of course, following in the footsteps of the fundamentalist listeralists it is imperative, in order to justify the position, to focus on a single text in a literature spanning centuries, isolate it from it's context, divorce it from subsequent development (including the Gospels which changed everything), amputate it from it's culture and history and proclaim it to be be-all end-all of Holy Writ. Nice work.

[MEGoody]

"Before we get so far into Islam-bashing that we can't recover, let us remember the Biblical command of Herem (to slaughter all peoples in the Promised Land) given to Joshua..."

You've misquoted - on purpose or by mistake I won't guess. Go back and read again. God did give instructions for the wholesale destruction of some societies/cities, but He never said to kill ALL unbelievers WHEREVER you find them.

[meandog]

You've misquoted - on purpose or by mistake I won't guess. Go back and read again. God did give instructions for the wholesale destruction of some societies/cities, but He never said to kill ALL unbelievers WHEREVER you find them.

No misquote...I did not state that He said kill them WHEREVER the ancient Hebrews found them; but they were ordered to kill them within the confines of the Promised Land...the point being that the Old Testament, like the Quran, is pretty brutal!