I know that it's politically incorrect to criticize anyone's belief and, counter-intuitively, the West has shied away from saying anything too negative about Islam since 9/11. But no one should be lulled by the lie that Islam is a "peaceful religion."
Violence and Holy War (jihad) are an historical and authentic part of Islam. Some may claim that Christianity, Judaism, and other religions share the same kind of history, but there's a distinction: violence in religion can be incidental, coincidental, or customary.*
- Incidental - Violence is limited to a specific historical occasion. It may be God's will, but it is not didactic (meant to be instructive for future generations).
- Coincidental - Violence is limited to specific individuals. It is neither God's will nor didactic.
- Customary - Violence is intended to establish a cultural norm. It is supposedly both God's will and didactic.
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e., uphold Sharia], nor embrace the true faith, [even if they are] from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29).
It's been said that "Jihad is not a defensive movement. It's offensive in nature and the historical norm." But in our self-loathing culture, Christianity is condemned for the Crusades while its authoritative text, the Bible, is ignored. Meanwhile, Islam is acquitted as the religion of peace, while the long history of Islamic Conquest is ignored.
*Victor Davis Hanson is the scholar I first heard make this distinction, which I've condensed here and re-labeled.
3 comments:
"Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam," Richard Bulliet
No, no, no. You've missed my point entirely.
Jones and Koresh were not Christians, they were cultists, well outside the pale of orthodoxy. On the other hand, bin Laden, the Taliban, and al Qaeda are ultra orthodox. The Koran and Muhammad's own life story are replete with continuous violence and the exhortation there of. Liberal Islam, almost exclusively in Western contexts, must try to explain away the violence as a "personal struggle." Jesus on the other hand said "love your enemy and do good to those who persecute you."
Christianity and Islam are opposite in this regard and it's nearly indisputable (unless one has an ax to grind). "Western eyes" are prone to see this distinction for a good, historical, verifiable reason.
Oh, and Meir Kahane? You mean the Jewish nationalist that was assasinated by Muslim fanatics in New York in 1990? Probably not the best person to bring up in defense of Islam.
But you didn't bring him up, Richard Bulliet did. And Bulliet is not exactly a neutral source. He's heavily biased for Islam (his area of expertise where he makes his living) and is profoundly anti-Israel. But you could have guessed that from his quote.
You can easily say that I am biased too, but I openly admit it upfront. And I give reason, fact, and history in my defense. Scholars like Bulliet hide behind a false curtain of impartiality and must re-interpret the facts, "questioning common assumptions" in order to pound a square peg into a round hole.
NEW POLL DATA:
26% of young Islamic men living in AMERICA support violent attacks against the 'infadels'....
Did you catch the "living in AMERICA" part?
Post a Comment