"But Christianity Has Been Behind Horrible Things, Too!"
Douglas Murray asks in The Spectator, "Will politicians finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam?"
An essential bit:
We might all agree that the history of Christianity has hardly been un-bloody. But is it not worth asking whether the history of Christianity would have been more bloody or less bloody if, instead of telling his followers to 'turn the other cheek', Jesus had called (even once) for his disciples to 'slay' non-believers and chop off their heads?
More:
Here we land at the centre of the problem -- a centre we have spent the last decade and a half trying to avoid: Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not. Nor is it, as some ill-informed people say, solely a religion of war. There are many peaceful verses in the Quran which -- luckily for us -- the majority of Muslims live by. But it is, by no means, only a religion of peace.I say this not because I hate Islam, nor do I have any special animus against Muslims, but simply because this is the verifiable truth based on the texts. Until we accept that we will never defeat the violence, we risk encouraging whole populations to take against all of Islam and abandon all those Muslims who are trying desperately to modernise, reform and de-literalise their faith. And -- most importantly -- we will give up our own traditions of free speech and historical inquiry and allow one religion to have an unbelievable advantage in the free marketplace of ideas.
More still:
We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.
And sadly, as Rob Long pointed out, this article was not posted in the past few days. It was posted in January, after the last attack on Paris.
Here's an instructive video -- an Islamic scholar on what Muslims will do when they become powerful (in the U.S, for example):
("Jiyza" is a non-Muslim humiliation tax that Jews and Christians are made to pay -- or be enslaved or killed if they don't pay.)
People are desperate to proclaim Islam "a religion of peace," which it is not. It is a violent, totalitarian system masquerading as a religion. And until we admit that, we won't be on any sort of track to any sort of solution to how Islam commands Muslims to convert or kill non-Muslims and slaughter gays, apostates, women who have sex outside marriage, and anybody who "insults" the prophet or the religion. All of this is part of Islam's mission tp overthrow societies with Enlightenment values and civil liberties and install "The New Caliphate" around the globe.
Looks to be an interesting article in the Spectator. And I quite agree with your related point about admitting the nature of Islam, or at least the all too common and prevalent "violent and totalitarian" aspects of it.
However, once that is done then one might reasonably ask, "What then?" And while one can definitely sympathize with the intent of many refugees to flee the carnage in places like Syria, I think one also needs to take to heart Ibn Warraq's argument - in his "Why I'm Not a Muslim" (highly recommended) - that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to the founding principles of democracy and human rights.
And given that then one might reasonably suggest that such immigrants be obliged to explicitly repudiate Islam itself, or at least its more literal and odious aspects, as a condition of immigrating. We already have some "means tests", and I hardly think it unreasonable to expect the means - intellectual and moral - to give more than lip service to those principles. Otherwise we are simply creating rather problematic fifth columns in our midst.
Steersman at November 15, 2015 12:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/11/15/but_christianit.html#comment-6289999">comment from SteersmanHere's a link to Why I Am Not a Muslim.
Amy Alkon
at November 15, 2015 6:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/11/15/but_christianit.html#comment-6290000">comment from Amy AlkonBook about the history of Islam and why it's sticky by a brilliant friend of mine, Howard Bloom: The Mohammed Code.
Amy Alkon
at November 15, 2015 6:40 AM
"Will politicians finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam?"
I suspect that politicians will only admit that these attacks have something to do with Islam when politicians, and not just their constituents, start getting slaughtered.
In the meantime, I'm not Italian, but this headline sums up my feelings about the whole situation:
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTxM5jeW4AApf0e.jpg
Martin at November 15, 2015 9:01 AM
Understanding Arabs: A Contemporary Guide to Arab Society
A better book, in my opinion
Isab at November 15, 2015 10:09 AM
I understand the impulse, because I felt this way until I started reading in Islam (and we as Westerners have a tendency to want to believe the best about people), but many who have no knowledge of it proclaim it peaceful. All over Twitter, etc. Um, no.
And again, there are many Muslims who are peaceful and perfectly good people. I would venture that many of them have no idea what their religion actually stands for. (A great many Muslims in the world are illiterate.) And you cannot be a decent person and practice an ideology that stands for -- and incites in our modern world -- the death or conversion of everyone who does not believe as you do.
Amy Alkon at November 15, 2015 11:33 AM
Or they are familiar with the Quran, but cherry pick, just as most people today don't forbid people from wearing mixed fibers. Cherry picking is what sensible people do.
The problem is the people who want to interpret the whole book as written, and there are more Muslims today than Christians who do so.
NicoleK at November 15, 2015 12:02 PM
We keep misnaming Islam as a religion. It is not a religion, it is a theocracy. That is a system of government with a religious belief as it's constitution.
Sharia law is the only law under this theocracy. That is why Islam and western civilization can not exist together. Sooner or later one must annihilate the other. Our only hope is that western nations/governments wake to this fact before our system is the one annihalated.
Jay at November 15, 2015 12:38 PM
But, but, Crooooosades and stuff! Joooze-I mean, Israaaael and stuff!
Yes, I know, I'm not being fair.
Meanwhile, my middle daughter, now a sophomore in college, tells me she's been seeing a lot of Facebook traffic saying things like, "Why all this attention on Paris when there are so many other places having problems?" Or, "Don't pray for Paris. Pray for the whole world." She's stayed out of it herself, and neither of us has added the tricolor overlay to our profile pictures.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 15, 2015 12:49 PM
It is extremely stupid to fall back on the Crooooosades and stuff! line. "We might all agree that the history of Christianity has hardly been un-bloody." hits this trope. But the reality is humans are violent creatures. Saying Christianity is violent without controlling for humans is disingenuous.
Secular nation definitely have a history of violence. Even more so than Christian nations. Even Buddhist and Confucian nations have a history of violence. The common factor for all of this, humans. What is significant is how much violence these value system represent.
Ben at November 15, 2015 2:12 PM
But the President says Islam is peace!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 15, 2015 2:20 PM
It is extremely stupid to fall back on the Crooooosades and stuff! line.
Forgot my /Snark tag.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 15, 2015 2:49 PM
However, once that is done then one might reasonably ask, "What then?"
___________________________________
To which I would add: Sam Harris once predicted that France will likely be a Muslim-majority nation by 2031 (likely a lot earlier, actually), mainly because of the BIRTH rate. Since no secular Western politician is going to suggest that non-Muslim couples have any obligation to breed more non-Muslim children that they likely don't want and/or can't afford, what else can we do?
BTW, how do those "means tests" work? Got a link?
lenona at November 15, 2015 3:15 PM
I got it Old RPM Daddy. I wasn't referring to you. The line I quoted from above was what I was talking about. And it is your snark about Jews and Crusades and we are all sinners here, blah, blah, blah. You at least had the snark. Murray was being serious!
Ben at November 15, 2015 3:59 PM
It's what fanatics do, too. ISIS is notorious for picking hadiths that justify their violence - even when most learned Islamic scholars have said that particular hadith is false.
The hadiths are made up recollections of people who lived with Mohammed. They are organized into three categories by Islamic scholars (even scholar who are Islamic): most likely true, probably true, most likely false. ISIS disregards the categories and selectively chooses hadiths that fit their worldview.
Conan the Grammarian at November 15, 2015 6:31 PM
On the plus side, the interviewer also seemed to think the guy was insane. There is hope for humanity.
NicoleK at November 17, 2015 1:55 PM
Leave a comment