Christians Under Attack

Our current conception of Islam is a woeful misinterpretation of the facts. We have invented ourselves a moderate Islam which embraces the very equality, tolerance and freedom that we Westerners love. And we have taken the deathly silence of our Muslim communities as a reassuring confirmation that they are just like us. For surely, if we were wrong, Muslims would rush to correct us. Sadly, though, there are many reasons why they will not.

To date, our leaders have only realized the most stunningly obvious facts about Islam - that Muslim extremists kill people. Yet we have fallen headlong into a far more subtle trap - the idea that these same people are responsible for "misinterpreting" Islam. This common conception - as we shall soon see - is false.

A major part of our conceptual problem with Islam arises from the meaninglessness of the terminology we are using. The term "moderate" is fuzzy and misleading. It essentially covers anyone from a newborn baby to someone about to commit a terrorist atrocity (i.e. who hasn't been recognized as a terrorist quite yet). "Moderate" says nothing. So we need to clarify exactly what types of Islamic moderates there are. There are, infact, two: idealist moderates and realist moderates.

The idealists are on our side. They are typically educated and raised in democracies and have come to appreciate the things most westerners do: liberty of the individual to think, do and say what they like. Yet the majority of Muslims don't care about freedom and individuality at all - they care about cultural identity and belonging.

In Islam, freedom of the individual is seen as dangerous, subversive and unnatural. What is expected is total submission to Allah and loyalty to the Muslim community (the umma). In return, the adherent receives the recognition and the status of being, as a Muslim, part of the umma.

Although they are Muslims, idealist moderates would like to put democracy (and personal freedom) first. Realist moderates, on the other hand, put Islam in its traditional place - above everything else. But it is not only here that idealists and realists differ. They also have a different outlook on the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an.

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is taken to be a perfect role model. Moderate Muslims (both idealists and realists) have reason to focus on his less controversial side: his modest living (in his early years at least), his love of his Muslim brothers and his marriage to poor widows to "keep them out of poverty". These are, perhaps, valuable traits, but they blind us to the man we should really be interested in: the Prophet Muhammad as a moral role model.

During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad committed countless crimes from genocide, murder and assassination to rape, theft and pillaging. The typical Muslim response to this claim is that Muhammad was a "warrior" whose actions are historical and should be judged as such. This claim, however, is a blatant smoke-screen and utter moral weakness. We could claim the same for Hitler or Stalin. Yet Muhammad is a religious character, he is supposed to be a moral guide.

Islam is certainly not the only religion in the world that has been involved in extensive violence. Yet religious leaders like Jesus, Buddha and Guru Nanak never raped women; neither did they execute captives or routinely engage in theft and deception. The Prophet Muhammad once beheaded 900 captive Jews simply because they refused to convert to Islam. With his followers, he then raped the remaining women, only hours after they had witnessed their husbands, brothers and sons being butchered. Such actions are surely not unique historically, but we are not talking history we are talking religion. Any religious leader that engages in such immoral activities deserves outright condemnation. Yet perversely, Muhammad is taken to be a "moral leader” And the religious battles Muhammad started during his lifetime continue today. Islam is the only religion that still engages in holy war; something that Christians gave this up 700 years ago.

Moderate Muslim idealists and realists both know the Prophet Muhammad was violent, cruel and devoid of compassion (at least for non-Muslims). My point, however, is that it is not the extremists and terrorists that are "misinterpreting" Islam - it is the moderate idealists (the ones most like us Westerners). Idealists would like to turn the Prophet Muhammad into a tolerant, compassionate and peace-loving man. Unfortunately, this is something the Prophet has never been and such a project of re-interpretation is doomed to failure.

Realist moderates also know the true character of the Prophet Muhammad, but have a more traditional outlook. Islam is the only true religion, there is only one God and his Prophet is Muhammad. Allah demands obedience and to him all men must submit. Hence, for the realist moderate, individual freedom and democracy are a pipe dream; meaningless and empty. What counts is obedience to God and loyalty Islam and the worldwide Muslim community - this alone will bring salvation. As God's Prophet, Muhammad was a religious warrior charged with the task of bringing all men, women and children to faith in Allah. Hence, for realist moderates, morality is beside the point. God demands submission and those who refuse will be damned.

Realist moderates know that taking such a moral position in a democracy is untenable. Their solution is simply to deny that there is a problem, preferably by drawing people's attention back to things that don't really matter (like veils, perhaps?) Realist moderates don't engage in terrorism, but they have already chosen sides. They have taken the traditional role of supporting their Islamic brothers and the worldwide community of Muslims. Tony Blair can call as hard as he likes for such people to put law and order before religion, but his reply will always be silence (be it resentful or indifferent). The truth is that Muslims have far closer affiliations to other Muslims than they will ever have towards the democracies they live in. If the debacle over the Danish cartoons has taught us anything it should be that Islam means submission to a single but universal cause.

Turning to the Qur'an, realist and idealist moderates both have an interest in misinterpreting the Qur'an to Westerners; again for very different reasons. For it's greatest part, the Qur'an is a frustrated diatribe denouncing non-believers, detailing their worthlessness and extolling the wonders of Islam. Let us ignore this and focus on something more substantive, like whether it is a moral or an immoral text.

Sadly, the substantive parts of the Qur'an advocate the very same immoral acts and policies demonstrated by the Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime. When we look to the Qur'an for material that could be used to refute or re-interpret Islam in a moderate way we are left with an embarrassing lack. There is so little material, in fact, that whole generations of Muslims scholars hoping to interpret the Qur'an in a more moderate tone have consistently been forced to abandon it. This leaves idealist moderates (the good guys) with no alternative other than to use less authoritative materials instead.

The Qur'an is replete with intolerance and justifications for the punishment for non-Muslims, yet wholly lacking in material that could ever redeem it. Just to take one example, the Qur'an wholly lacks an "equality clause" which is found in almost all of the other world religions from Christianity and Buddhism through to Sikhism. I mean the "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" type of equality that applies to all people (and not just Muslims). The Qur'an, however, explicitly rejects this idea.

Idealist moderates, like some of their predecessors, would like to re-interpret the Qur'an. They would like to introduce tolerance, equality and peace and perhaps even promote freedom of the individual. However, the Qur'an is a book of war and it is utterly beyond redemption. This leaves idealist moderates weakened. Their use of less authoritative materials leaves them vulnerable to contradiction and rejection from realist moderates and extremists - both of whom can rely on the authority of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an to back their claims.

Is Islam a "religion of peace"? - I don't think so. Idealist moderates would like it to be. They remain silent because they lack the religious authority that only Muhammad and the Qur'an can bring. Indeed, if they are not careful, they open themselves to the claim that they are being un-Islamic by rejecting the Messenger of God and his divine book. Meanwhile realist moderates know that keeping quiet is the only way to survive in a system to which they are hostile.

Perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is the silence. Despite knowing the evil nature of the Prophet and the Qur'an moderates, of all stripes, have little to say. I find it manipulative and obscene that Islam claims ethical equivalence to morally-grounded religions. It is yet more obscene that we grant it.

Next time you watch a terrorist broadcast on television note very carefully that they are quoting extensively from the life of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. This fact that should have sent alarm bells ringing long ago. The truth is that we are in a religious war and one that has been forced upon us. The enemy is a religion, not the Muslims themselves, yet we must defend ourselves nevertheless.

At present, the West is behaving irrationally. We are acting like the man who locked himself into a tower to stop himself being attacked. "I am free" he says, yet he is simply in a prison of his own making. Islam is a religious ideology that hasn't changed since the dark ages. It doesn't want democracy or freedom; it wants power in its hands.

What should we do?

We should treat Islam the same way it treats all other religions in fully Islamic nations

POSTED BY/http://www.news.faithfreedom.org