The Threat of Islam, or What Some Might Call Mohammedism
I was over reading at Albion's Seedlings (an excellent and informative blog so far) and came across an article by Peter Saint-Andre. In it, he states the truth that "Islam is not a religion of peace. I know that Islam means submission -- submission to the arbitrary will of Allah in heaven, submission to the arbitrary edicts of authoritarian strongmen on earth. I know that the Koran enjoins Muslims to not make friends with those who do not believe in Allah, and even says to "seize them and kill them wherever you find them" (sura 4.89)."
It is really a well-written piece. He does not, in my opinion, focus enough attention on the actual behavior is Mohammed himself. And the trouble with that is that it lets Muslims off the hook. They can simply say that the militants are a cook fringe and really no different from Christian zealots. It's this sort of moral parity that allows Muslims to get away with their violent ideology.
As I pointed out in my response to Mr. Saint-Andre's article, there is no moral parity between Islam and Christianity (and I'm not saying that Mr. Saint-Andre said there was -- I was just using his article as a spring-board for my own point). To recognize any sort of moral parity between Islam and Christian ity is to aid Muslims in their assault upon the institutions and culture of the Anglerealm (also called the Anglosphere). There is no moral parity.
Mohammed taught submission to dogma and religious war against non-believers. This is the opposite of traditional English values found in the Anglerealm. The sooner we recognize Mohammed, and not misguided zealots, as the source of these attitudes, the sooner we, as a people can stand up and defend ourselves against the onslaught of Islam, or almost more properly, of Mohammedism.
* * *
Ætheling's Response to Peter Saint-Andre's Article
The bigger problem with Islam is not the Koran. It is Mohammed. The Bible has some violent stuff in it. Most Christians can ignore this because Christ was not violent and never sought to prey upon other people.
Mohammed was very un-Christ-like. Under his leadership, the very first Muslim community in the world emigrated to a new community and was encouraged to survive not by charity, but by raiding desert caravans -- by stealing. I have not completed my studies of the life of Mohammed, yet, but this is just one example out of many of his malfeasance.
With the founder of the faith engaging in violent acts of robbery against other people, it is impossible for good and lawful members of the faith to argue against such behavior by other members. Christians can always point to Christ and say that he would not have condoned murder or vigilante-style summary execution. Muslims cannot say the same of Mohammed.
Muslims like to scream and point fingers at the violent Christians whenever someone is critical of Islam. In addition to it being the "you too" fallacy, it is also a false analogy. Scholars can always draw examples from Mohammed's life to show that Islam began as a violent faith. They cannot draw such examples from the life of Christ. And therein lies the fundamental difference. When you look at the Spanish Inquisition, you can make a valid argument that they were not true Christians, because Christ never once engaged in or even remotely encouraged such activity. When you look at militant Islamists, one cannot say they are not true Muslims when a prudent scholar can point to such behavior in Mohammed and his original followers.
We often hear of the great Christian Reformation, during which the Church cast off its violent past (though really, it was more of a violent middle period. The violent past fallacy is, I believe, a political construct to put Christianity on a similar moral level with Islam, which it is not). The Reformation was possible (or at least made easier), in my opinion, because a violent, totalitarian imposition of the Christian faith was incompatible with the recorded words of Christ.
In order for Islam to go through such a Reformation, it would be necessary to repudiate the actions of the faith's founder, Mohammed. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.
There is some hope in men like Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, who says "that [Islamic] scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using 'misguided and void' interpretations to justify violence." But his message will not be able to take hold at a fundamental level until Mohammed's own violent acts are addressed by the faith at large.
It is really a well-written piece. He does not, in my opinion, focus enough attention on the actual behavior is Mohammed himself. And the trouble with that is that it lets Muslims off the hook. They can simply say that the militants are a cook fringe and really no different from Christian zealots. It's this sort of moral parity that allows Muslims to get away with their violent ideology.
As I pointed out in my response to Mr. Saint-Andre's article, there is no moral parity between Islam and Christianity (and I'm not saying that Mr. Saint-Andre said there was -- I was just using his article as a spring-board for my own point). To recognize any sort of moral parity between Islam and Christian ity is to aid Muslims in their assault upon the institutions and culture of the Anglerealm (also called the Anglosphere). There is no moral parity.
Mohammed taught submission to dogma and religious war against non-believers. This is the opposite of traditional English values found in the Anglerealm. The sooner we recognize Mohammed, and not misguided zealots, as the source of these attitudes, the sooner we, as a people can stand up and defend ourselves against the onslaught of Islam, or almost more properly, of Mohammedism.
Ætheling's Response to Peter Saint-Andre's Article
The bigger problem with Islam is not the Koran. It is Mohammed. The Bible has some violent stuff in it. Most Christians can ignore this because Christ was not violent and never sought to prey upon other people.
Mohammed was very un-Christ-like. Under his leadership, the very first Muslim community in the world emigrated to a new community and was encouraged to survive not by charity, but by raiding desert caravans -- by stealing. I have not completed my studies of the life of Mohammed, yet, but this is just one example out of many of his malfeasance.
With the founder of the faith engaging in violent acts of robbery against other people, it is impossible for good and lawful members of the faith to argue against such behavior by other members. Christians can always point to Christ and say that he would not have condoned murder or vigilante-style summary execution. Muslims cannot say the same of Mohammed.
Muslims like to scream and point fingers at the violent Christians whenever someone is critical of Islam. In addition to it being the "you too" fallacy, it is also a false analogy. Scholars can always draw examples from Mohammed's life to show that Islam began as a violent faith. They cannot draw such examples from the life of Christ. And therein lies the fundamental difference. When you look at the Spanish Inquisition, you can make a valid argument that they were not true Christians, because Christ never once engaged in or even remotely encouraged such activity. When you look at militant Islamists, one cannot say they are not true Muslims when a prudent scholar can point to such behavior in Mohammed and his original followers.
We often hear of the great Christian Reformation, during which the Church cast off its violent past (though really, it was more of a violent middle period. The violent past fallacy is, I believe, a political construct to put Christianity on a similar moral level with Islam, which it is not). The Reformation was possible (or at least made easier), in my opinion, because a violent, totalitarian imposition of the Christian faith was incompatible with the recorded words of Christ.
In order for Islam to go through such a Reformation, it would be necessary to repudiate the actions of the faith's founder, Mohammed. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.
There is some hope in men like Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, who says "that [Islamic] scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using 'misguided and void' interpretations to justify violence." But his message will not be able to take hold at a fundamental level until Mohammed's own violent acts are addressed by the faith at large.
posted by Ætheling at 11:07 AM
1 Comments:
Aetheling,
The Koran has way too much violence and justification for violence. Mohammed himself was a role model for violent and evil behavior. Thank you for summarizing these points so cogently.
However, once we have established the nature of Mohammed, we need to keep moving and consider other things that are just as important.
Terrorists and their sympathizers are moral actors. As moral actors, they need to be held accountable for their deeds and their beliefs in a way that goes beyond religion. It's easy to focus on their religion, but the truth is, there are 1.4 billion persons with a Muslim identity, and only a tiny few are terrorists.
A similar situation occurs with crime. Most criminals are poor or relatively poor. Yet only a tiny precentage of poor people use that excuse to choose a life of crime.
We can't ignore Islam (or in the case of crime, we can't ignore poverty). But our analysis and our response to terrorism can't get hung up on religious doctrine. We need to identify the individual and group actors, determine their motivations, and respond accordingly. Religion is only one piece of the puzzle.
Thanks again for your post. You have a great blog here, I hope you have a long and sucessful career as a blogger.
Post a Comment
<< Home