The teddy bear scandal put Islam on the front pages again as a religion whose practitioners are so insecure that they cannot accept anything that they might perceive as critical or demeaning. As have most conservative bloggers, I’ve written periodically about Islam’s misogyny, its cultural insecurity, its intolerance, etc. I’ve quoted my cousin the prison chaplain, who says that Islam is a huge sell in prisons because it doesn’t demand of the converts any change in behaviors. Instead, it allows them to justify and continue with their original criminal behaviors on the ground that they are appropriate acts towards non-Muslims.
I’ve also slowly been coming to the conclusion that Islam is not a moral religion as we in the Judeo-Christian West understand religion-based morality. The Old Testament is both a history stretching back to prehistoric times (since most Biblical scholars believe, for example, that the Bible’s telling of Noah’s Ark is the last act in an oral history stretching back hundreds, if not thousands, of years), and it is also a book of moral precepts that dictate man’s behavior towards other men. There is no doubt that men in the Bible slipped from the path God set before them, there is no doubt that some of God’s commands were frightening and violent (so much so that we still struggle with them today), and there is no doubt that many since the Bible have used the Bible to justify base behavior, not best behavior. The same holds true for the New Testament. While Jesus’ message is overwhelmingly one of love and compassion, there was certainly enough in it for those who sought a militant, aggressive Christianity to use the New Testament as their guide.
Nevertheless, almost from the moment the Bible, both Old Testament and New, became fixed, Christians and Jews of good will have struggled to analyze the morally questionable parts of the Bible in light of the overwhelmingly moral parts. (See, for example, the link I gave in the preceding paragraph, as well as this link.) As we move further forward in time, both Jews and Christians try ever more to tone down the passages that, instead of stating abstract moral principles, insist upon certain now-antiquated aspects of tribal law (such as killing witches or gays).
It’s been different since the very beginning with the Koran. As I pointed out in this post, the nature of the man behind the Koran is very different from the nature of the men behind the Bible. Moses sought freedom for his people; Jesus sought salvation for man kind. And Mohammad — well, Mohammad sought converts and tribal control. The Koran also shows someone very, very sensitive to rejection. More significantly, contrary to the Bible, Mohammad’s personal feelings on a given subject did not end up merely as narrative, they ended up as controlling doctrine.
What I just said is very abstract, so let me make in more concrete by talking about one of the Koranic stories and wrapping up with Robert Spencer’s conclusion about the larger implications of that story.
The story, as retold in Spencer’s masterful The Truth About Muhammad, is that of the Nakhla raid, which took place when Muhammad felt he had enough military power to take on his old enemies the Quraysh (who were enemies because they would not convert to Islam). Preliminarily, in connection with the Quraysh, it’s worthwhile remembering that it was as to them that Muhammad announced that the women and children of enemy tribes were to be defined by their tribal status, not their youth or sex, making them fair game for slaughter. As Spencer says (p. 98) “[f]rom then on, innocent non-Muslim women and children could legitimately suffer the fate of male unbelievers.”
As for the Nakhla raid itself, Muhammad did not participate. Instead, he instructed a lieutenant to spy on the Quraysh. Once the lieutenant got within range of the Quraysh, however, and decided it would be a shame not to kill as many of them as possible, despite the fact that any slaughter would occur on the last day of a holy period during which there was not supposed to be any killing. So, the Muslims killed and robbed.
Once the slaughter was complete, the lieutenant and his band headed home with their booty, having specifically reserved a fifth part for Muhammad himself. Muhammad was at first upset, both because he had not ordered a killing during the sacred month and because other Quraysh were pointing out that Muhammad’s prophecies seemed mostly geared to justifying banditry. However, as Spencer explains, when confronted by this discomforts, “another helpful revelation came from Allah,” this time saying that the Quraysh were so offensive in God’s eyes, that this trumped the holy month. Having received this useful ex post facto revelation, Muhammad was free to take the booty reserved for him.
Spencer’s take on the subject (p. 99) wraps back around to the point I made at the beginning of this post:
This was a momentous incident, for it would set a pattern: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard. Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency.
I am not saying, incidentally, that there are not millions of Muslims who behave morally in the way that we, living in the Judeo-Christian faith, understand morality. Whether they pull that morality from the Koran, from Judeo-Christian influences, or from their innate goodness and humanity, I do not know. I just know that there are enormous numbers of good people out there. However, unlike other religions, Islam encourages behavior that both the Bible, and Bibilical scholars, have tried to quash. And unlike other religions, Islam seems to have fewer scholars trying to explain or defend those passages in the Koran that seem to demand or justify immoral, rather than moral behavior (if moral behavior is understood as demanding the highest and best from man, towards himself and towards others).
As to the bad behavior that seems to be an inherent part of Islam, I’d like to give the last words in this post to Ian O’Doherty, writing for an Irish paper. (H/t: RD.) After giving a laundry list of Muslim outrage which has morphed into outrageous behavior, O’Doherty states a declaration of independence for those of us classified as Islamophobes:
And, of course, anyone who writes about this [“this” being the laundry list to which I referred] is immediately accused of being Islamophobic and racist.
Well, I am Islamophobic in the sense that I’m phobic towards the notion of treating women as third-class citizens, flogging people and killing them for having an independent thought.
I’m phobic towards the idea of killing Theo Van Gogh because he made a movie they didn’t like. I’m phobic towards killing a Japanese translator because he worked on the Satanic Verses.
I’m also rather phobic to the notion that the Muslim world has the right to riot and kill each other because of a few unfunny cartoons in an obscure Danish publication.
As regards the spurious accusation of racism which is bandied about against anyone who criticises Islam, let me make this clear — you cannot change the colour of your skin. Pigmentation is irrelevant. But you can dislike someone’s superstition and in Islam’s case, even among other superstitions, they are particularly horrible.
No, my Muslim friend, it’s your religion and your Sharia law I am criticising. It has nothing to do with the colour of your skin. And you know what? In a free democracy we still have the right to say things like that.
Filed under: Christians, Islam, Jews, Muslim violence, Religion | Tagged: 101, 297, 538, 583, 637, 650, 672, 690, 76 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Book,
This can be analyzed using some of Aristotle’s questions that come up in his Politics, a book I recommend to you and your readers. Some of the basic questions of political philosophy are “who is a citizen” of a given regime; and further, who is the good citizen of a given regime; and finally, in which regime is the good man also the good citizen?
Aristotle comes down to admitting that democracy, even though it is one of his “deficient” regimes, is ultimately acceptable because it is one of the regimes which allows the philosopher to be left alone to pursue wisdom; and although aristocracy is the regime where the good or noble man is also the good citizen simply, it is also possible to be good or noble in a democracy, for the same reason democracy is benign towards philosophy.
This is all to say that I think it is possible for a Muslim to be a good citizen in the West, or a good Muslim in the West, but not both at the same time. A good Muslim, by their own definition, cannot be a good American citizen, if by good we mean one who takes the whole teaching of the Koran as mandatory. Those Muslims willing, like Jews and Christians, to reread and moderate some of the text of the scriptures, are quite assimilable to open, Western societies, but are not good Muslims as measured by an orthodox reading of the Koran; those who are bent on expresssing the full political, social, and theological import of the Koran into the social milieux they find themselves in, cannot be assimilated, nor do they wish to be–and they are therefore never going to be good citizens, or good men, by Aristotle’s reckoning.
The regime in which the good Muslim is the good citizen is a very deficient regime, as demonstrated by the Taliban regime, the Sudan, etc.
I’ve been saying this for a while. And getting called a racist for it.
I think to the extent Islam has been a good religion it has been despite Muhammad. He was personally nothing but L. Ron Hubbard with more violence — somewhere in the gray area between sincere crackpot and cynical charlatan. From the poison soil of the religion he created, later thinkers managed to coax some wholesome fruits and lovely flowers, especially when they assimilated whole chunks of Persian, Indian, and Roman civilization.
The problem now is that the driving force in modern Islam is Wahabbism, a very severe back-to-basics style of fundamentalism. They’ve cast aside all the humanizing influences of the past thousand years and strive to return Islam to its barbaric murder-cult origins.
We need to inform the Saudi government, now, that _all_ funding to mosques and madrasas outside their own country must end now. If they won’t stop, then the West must make them stop.
The problem can we stated very simply:
“Islam has no Golden Rule”
Every other religion in the world has some version of: “Treat others as you wish to be treated.”–
except Islam.
I’ve read the Koran (in english, unfortunately) and I’ve read a lot the the Haditha, but there is no Golden Rule….
It may be that, in the end, the teddy bear was the straw that broke the camel’s back in regard to the West’s perception of Islam – it revealed Islam as farce and opened many people’s eyes to how dangerously ridiculous Islam is as a professed “religion of peace”? There could not be a better example of Islam’s fundamental contradiction to a modern, enlightened world.
To build upon Pacificus’ excellent construct, I have met many Muslims who were wonderful human beings. However, the question becomes whether a person can be both a good human being and a good Muslims. After having read the the Koran, I have serious doubts – to be a good human being, one would have to contradict entire sections of the Koran and Haddith.
The Old Testament gave us 10 laws by which to live – none advocated violence against one’s fellow Man. The New Testament redefined our relationship with God with two over-arching commandments: a) loving God first and foremost and b) loving others (ALL others, not just Christians) “as you have loved Me”.
Gray is absolutely right: Islam pits those that are Muslim against those that aren’t. Although I have met Muslims that do live by the Golden Rule, I have never met a Muslim that did so in the name of Islam…or at least according to any text within the Koran that could stand on its own right without direct contradiction from another Sura.
[…] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Islam, non-Muslims, Judeo-Christian, God, New Testament, Old Testament, Koran Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
Gray is absolutely right: Islam pits those that are Muslim against those that aren’t.
Given the time in which Mohammed and Islam arose and the wars waged against both the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople and the Persians, can you expect anything else? Christianity arose during the height or rather the dark ending days of the Western Roman Empire. It was suffused with the Cult of Mithras and various other religions into a common and popular set of tenets, adopted even by the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. It was an almagamation through missionary work, because conquest was unworkable given that the Roman Empire held all temporal power.
Could Mohammed’s religion, given the environment in which he lived and the amount of wars waged by Islam, be the same as Christianity? No. Perhaps in the future, but not as it stands now.
[…] And now a few words on IslamBy BookwormOnce the slaughter was complete, the lieutenant and his band headed home with their booty, having specifically reserved a fifth part for Muhammad himself. Muhammad was at first upset, both because he had not ordered a killing during the …Bookworm Room – https://bookwormroom.wordpress.com […]