It is unfair to ascribe unpleasant traits to an entire class of people that are shared by only part. But it would be suicidal for Americans to completely ignore the history and beliefs of a movement that is growing stronger, which has an explosive past, and that admittedly few understand. Of course to reduce all of Islam to anger and rage is a major error. But we must admit its adherents tend towards dramatic over-sensitivity to perceived slights. Yet, instead of making excuses for a trend that naturally saddens and makes us feel uncomfortable, we must accept Islam's permanently aggrieved nature as a simple fact and then plan how to responsibly respond to future incidents. Along these lines, a few stories from the life of Mohammad will cast light upon the problem.
I. Multicultural Paradoxes
The recent threat by Florida pastor
Terry Jones to burn copies of the Koran (aka Qur'an), versus imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's plan to build a
Ground Zero mosque has produced an interesting study in contrasts. One cannot help but note the different standards used for the two situations. On the one hand, aggrieved Americans opposed to a Muslim religious center built on property cleared by Islamic terror have been advised to accept this as an act of good faith. But when a small-time pastor threatened to
burn a copy of the Muslim holy book, Americans were again
advised to be "sensitive" to the Muslim need to have their holy writ absolutely protected. Is this a contradiction, or an acceptable standard?
It is interesting that Islam has been essentially given the status of a "little brother" when it acts up, and concessions appear to be perpetually made on its behalf. But there is nothing amusing about
Fatwas being
called out on authors, or seeing
massive public prayer demonstrations made in public streets, or any of the various violent attacks made on
Western sites in the last few decades.
It is obvious for Islam to be treated as an equal and looked upon with respect that it must live up to modern standards of religious practice. But let's being honest--Muslims in Western countries are not going to repatriate to the Saudi Peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc because they are criticized by their neighbors. And undoubtedly, truth be known, these expatriate Muslims live better, safer and more privileged lives than they did in their Muslim home states. Therefore, these Western Muslims ought to be given every
encouragement to liberalize and separate off from the violent old creed. This means we consider taking the time and initiative to engage these newcomers in discussions about American history, our religious ideals, and the beauties of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But what explains the curious Muslim impetus towards violent reactions to what they regard as acts of impiety? A brief study of the life of Mohammad provides some suggestions.
II. Studied Revenge or Unpleasant Coincidence?
A few incidents from the life of Muhammad give an unsettling premonition into the tenor of tolerance of Islam as a whole. Peerless historian of Islam
Alfred Guillaume, in his book
Islam, tells of an early interaction between Muhammad and the Jews which has proved an unfortunate template for the history of the two. Also, Martin Ling, master of Sufi history, uses the earliest sources to describe the story of how Muhammad responded to a woman and old man who poked fun of him through poems.
A. Acts of Muhammad
Jews:
After Muhammad heard the voice of Allah, and then began to preach to the pagans, Christians and Jews, he received much resistance against conversion. Driven from Mecca, he left on his
Hijira, and came instruct the Jews elsewhere on his identity. Muhammad explained to them the fact
he was the last prophet sent. When the Arab Jews realized he was not from the line of King David, nor even Jewish, as called for in
Isaiah 9 regarding the Messiah, they apparently laughed in his face and scorned his claims as possibly the result of madness. Neither did the Jews throw in with his army. Muhammad never forgot or forgave this egregious act of impiety.
When Muhammad finally conquered Mecca he took all the remaining Jews of Medina, dug an enormous pit and began the grisly holy work of
beheading 800 Jewish men in the public square. Apparently
this took an entire day and long into the evening. Then the women were passed off to the Muslims as concubines while the children were sold off into slavery.
An Evil Old Man & Wretched Poetesses:
According to both Martin Lings in his
Muhammad, His Life Based On The Earliest Sources, and Alfred Guillaume's translation of from the
Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq (The Life of Muhammad), the founder of Islam was tormented by a young woman from Mecca,
Asma bint Marwan. She had been putting out poetry criticizing Muhammad when he asked, in exasperation, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" His follower Amayr b. Adiy al-Khatami went late at night to her house and
ran a sword through her, having first pulled a suckling infant off her chest before the execution. When Muhammad heard of this brave feat the next day, he said, "You have helped God and His Apostle, O Umayr!"
A very aged man,
Abu Afak--purportedly over 100 years old, was also executed for lampooning Muhammad through poetry. He was killed by Salem b. Omayr after Muhammad heard of his verse and exclaimed,
"Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Apparently, Asma Bint Marwan had heard of the
old man's execution which angered her into composing her own demeaning verses. Obviously,
Muhammad did not accept criticism by poem.
B. Muslim Law & Tribalism: Lex Talionis
It would be impossible to overlook the strong element of
Lex Talionis, or "
An eye for an eye" justice at the root of the Koran. The composition of the Muslim law, or
Shari'ah, is no mystery, according to unparalleled orientalist
Joseph Schacht. He points out in his
Introduction to Muslim Law that a strong element found within Shari'ah is tribal or pagan law. Some of the most savage aspects of the Shari'ah, including
judicial amputations for theft, etc, which can be
traced to this pagan code.
One of the signal elements of Shari'ah is the fact that there appears to be
no spirit of Natural Law in this code, meaning that punishments meted out centuries ago cannot be updated regardless of the barbarity. An example is the stoning of women, or lashing of apostates. Because this law is presented as perfect, it is not changed since one cannot update perfection.
C. Koran
The Koran (Qur'an) itself also calls for what appears violent acts and lawless deeds. As opposed to listing all the violent
surahs (chapters), linked is a site where the reader might peruse them and decide for themselves whether these are the godly sentiments. If so, then we must decide how to integrate them into our society.
As
one author writes,
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. (continued)
D. Arab Psychology
According to Raphael Patai, in his book
The Arab Mind, there are certain hallmarks of Arab and Muslim thought. First, is a belief that emotions cannot be held always in check, and that it is perfectly understandable when great anger or grief is unleashed. The result is a tendency to be overly emotional and offer blind loyalty to their causes. The scholar of Muslim society, Sania Hamady, in
Temperament and Character of the Arabs, describes this as a balance between the quick-temper versus a typical sense of fatalistic resignation. Such outbursts of temper will strike most often in crowds and quite frequently include utter disregard for personal safety.
Patai also describes the Muslim tendency to attack randomly all foreigners when one group is initially targeted, a characteristic Middle East expert
Bernard Lewis, in
The Jews of Islam, claims represents a warring against all unbelievers, writing it was "'
al-kufru millatun wahida' ...ie the realm of the unbelievers is one nation." Patai also claims there is a deep-felt need in the Arab psyche for personal revenge, as characterized by the blood-feud, described by the phrase "
Dam butlab dam," or "Blood demands blood." In fact, Patai describes this as one of the chief historic attributes of the Arab people, being a propensity towards strife and conflict, and the carrying of long grudges.
E. Jihad
Obviously, the doctrine of jihad is enormously controversial, but a few general remarks are apropos. First, it has been claimed,
ad nauseam, that... "
Islam is a religion of peace." What exactly this sentiment would mean to an Arab from the classical period (
Ayyam al-Arab, aka the Days of the Arabs) would be hard to fathom. But we can at least note that ancient Arabia boasted a warrior ethos which other antiquated societies, like ancient Greece, also claimed. There was no "pacifist movement" in the ancient world, and any person suggesting such would have found themselves excluded very quickly from the protective environs of the tribe. As Michael Bonner writes in
Jihad In Islamic History, Doctrines & Practice, "Islam arose in an environment where warfare--or at any rate, armed violence with some kind of organization and planning--was characteristic of everyday life."And Islam, having never had a Reformation, still carries the warrior mentality in its ethos to this day.
Second, and perhaps even more important, there was never a debate in ancient Islam about the "
Just War" as developed by Saint Augustine, according to Bonner. The reason for this is quite easy to explain. Muslims followed Muhammad's theory of God, not Christ's. Islam does not value the notion of "turning the other cheek," as Jesus taught. Instead, this society was seen as bathed in blood from ceaseless strife, struggle and warfare. A dichotomy was presented: There is a
House of Peace (or Allah) and a House of War. All unbelievers live in the House of War, and therefore the House of God can attack the unbelievers at any time, justly. Therefore, a Muslim "Just War" has always been one which
pitted Muslims against unbelievers.
III. 9/11 Mosques & Burnt Korans
What is more objectionable--building a Muslim outreach center where Muslim terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, or torching a copy of the Koran? Perhaps the question has no definitive answer, being a case of apples versus oranges. Instead, the query simply highlights the irony of the different responses of the two religions. While America is struggling to come to terms with what "tolerance" looks like for an ancient, violent creed we do not understand. Meanwhile, it seems the entire Muslim world is poised to leap into action at the slightest provocation, or the tiniest spark, as it were.
America's way has always been based upon various Christian theories of government and religious tolerance, since our founding. This raises an interesting question: Given the claim by both Christianity and Islam of having the last prophetic voice of mankind--can anyone imagine Jesus having 800 Pharisees or Sadducee Jews put to death for refusing to accept His religious claims? Further, is it even conceivable that Christ would have had an old man or pregnant woman with suckling babe on chest--slaughtered for writing insulting poems? Perhaps it is therefore time we ask American Muslims to filter their ideas about God and Muhammad through the lens of Jesus, who died nobly for others instead of killing for his reputation or beliefs, and yet whose Spirit lives in America. After all, good Muslims say they believe in Jesus.
IV. Conclusion
Aristotle writes about the "
telos" which is the direction in which a thing naturally moves. Could it be that Islam's natural telos ~ at this point in time~ still moves towards the primitive and savage, being fixated on anger, revenge, over-reaction, and violence? If so, this still does not mean all Muslims tend towards violence, or that Islam cannot evolve. After all, isn't it time Islam finally had its
Reformation? Protestantism occurred about 1,500 years after Christ. Today it has been about 1,500 years since Muhammad preached. So the timing couldn't be any better to turn over a new leaf, put aside violence, and embrace religious tolerance and civil society.
Until Islam does have a genuine Reformation, and gives up physical attacks, sexism, and primitive punishments, the majority of Americans will have mixed feelings about the religion. Until then, can we perhaps find some "failsafe" ("Fail-safe describes a feature which, in the event of failure, responds in a way that will cause no harm, or at least a minimum of harm...") way to keep a handle Islam's surfeit of anger and violence? And what might a "Failsafe Islam" look like? One which is kept in check by legal and ethical guidelines, those acceptable for America's traditions and rights based theory of the Good Life. Hopefully, time will tell soon enough.
"If the devil wants in, he'll get in." -- Sons of Anarchy
Why do major religions react in radically different ways to similar stimulus? For example, why would desecration of one religion's holy books bring mostly shrugs, whereas another religion threatens armed conflict when their guru is spoofed? It is part of the modern American myth to accept that "all religions teach the same thing, and lead to the same place." This patent falsehood can be traced to Joseph Campbell and like minds who helped spread this brain-numbing disease of universalism. But what is the organic source of Muslim rage? This issue must be raised by Western politicians and officials as we are increasingly forced to adapt to Muslim communities, beliefs and practices.
