
When most Americans are children, they are told by their parents to avoid questioning another about religion. In the south, at least, it is increasingly uncommon to hear someone say,
“What Church do you go to?”
Most of the time such a question comes from someone who either is banking on a hunch that the other person is a Christian, or is oblivious and ignorant of the fact that a significant percentage of people find such a question to be uncomfortable or awkward.
In Urban areas, especially among the educated, and in business circles, such questions are generally understood as taboo. In public school systems it has traditionally been the practice to avoid discussion of religion. So, most children who come through these schools understand that religiosity varies from family to family, and culture to culture. Furthermore, university education emphasizes equality of viewpoints, and makes great strides to avoid ethnocentrism through practice of “cultural relativism.”
It is for this reason that most Americans are completely ignorant about the teachings and practices of Islam, despite it being one of the most important aspects of human civilization. While many college educated people could provide enough of a thumbnail sketch of Buddhism or Taoism to fake it through cocktail conversation, Islam is just another religion that is about “Allah,” and a guy named “Mohammed.”
My experience with Islam probably began with Spike Lee’s movie Malcolm X, about the revolutionary African American activist of the mid-20th century. The movie depicted Islam as a highly disciplined and virtuous experience that transformed Malcolm into the provocative infamous political leader. Little to nothing is mentioned about the sacred writings that inform the practice of Islam: The Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith. All I knew after seeing the film was that Muslims didn’t eat pork, drink alcohol, and women usually had to cover their heads. I also noted that Angela Bassett was a whole lot better looking and charismatic that Malcolm’s real wife was.
Good and well meaning people all over the world practice Islam. Many come from devout families whose very life is integrated into some variant of organized Islam. I’ve known and befriended Muslims to a limited degree, but admittedly, most were not devout, and probably were more concerned about tradition than the actual doctrine espoused by the sacred texts.
One of the assumptions I made about Islam (until recently) was that it was a religion that followed the original Torah, or Old Testament, and supplemented its teachings with the Koran, which was revealed to the prophet Mohammed. For this reason I also assumed that the basic tenets of Islam were similar to those of the Christianity and Judaism, especially those of the Ten Commandments that prohibit murder, adultery, etc.
Recently, I stumbled into some work for a company known as the “Center for The Study of Political Islam” here in Nashville, who has recently published a series of books that explain the sacred texts: the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira in plain english. Each paragraph is painstakingly referenced to the original texts for verity, and heavily condensed and reordered to eliminate the confusing repetition and lack of chronological order that make the originals so difficult to understand to the modern reader.
Granted, since these books are the only source I have, there is no way to know if there is significant context that is being left out: I admit that my following conclusions could be premature.
However, knowing the way in which the The Torah and the New Testament is used by churches and practicing Christians, the context itself is interpreted on a case-by-case basis. That is, it is not an uncommon practice to pick a verse from scripture and apply it to whatever you want to illustrate or prove a point, whether or not that meaning corresponds neatly with the original intent of the author thousands of years ago — especially considering that if the bible could be put on “debug” mode to remove any logical statements that were inconsistent or contradictory, a good chunk of it would go to /dev_null/.
Apparently, the same incongruities and logical/literal inconsistencies occur throughout the Koran.
That said, after reading the first volume, Mohammed and the Unbelievers: A Polictical Life — which is a highly condensed translation of the Sira, or, the sacred text that describes the life and actions of Mohammed — my perspective on Islam has been utterly turned upside down.
Jihad, which has been painted by the media and apologists of relativism as an aberration or perversion of Islam by extremists, is exactly what you think it is: a physical war of violence on un-believers who refuse to “submit” to Allah.
No if, ands, or buts about it.
There are two general phases of Mohammed’s life; the early days in Mecca as a religious leader with a meager following of just hundred or so, where he preached a somewhat tolerant brand of monotheism; and the second phase beginning in the mostly Jewish town of Medina, where he commanded his followers to attack and murder those who resisted submission to Allah and his teachings as revealed to the Prophet. The second phase led to Mohammed’s eventual military domination of Arabia, and the eradication of the open practice of the Christian and Jewish religions from much of the region.
This is best illustrated by Mohammed’s approval of public beheading of hundreds of Jewish soldiers who were defending thier village, following their surrender in a Siege. Not surprising as an act of war, but certainly not what you would expect from a Prohet. So, I guess the Taliban was really just practicing good ol’ fashioned Islam after all.
This first caliph was the beginning of a long saga — the first civilization war that led to the Crusades, the Moorish invasion of Egypt and Southern Europe, up to the destruction of the world trade center.
Once you read the actual actions of Mohammed in the Sira, and the literal word that Islam follows, there is simply no more dispute about whether or not murder is categorically acceptable: it is not only acceptable, but virtuous, categorically. Furthermore, the highest honor IS to die for Allah in war against unbelievers. Paradise waits for those who perish in Jihad. Suicide is not only acceptable in Jihad, but considered a certain path to immortality in heaven.
Jihad is specifically a proactive and perpetual state of the true Muslim — not a reactionary, or defensive position to preserve the faith. Thus, to be a Muslim is to be in a proactive state of violent struggle against those who refuse to believe. For this reason, Islam is easily and readily co-opted by any revolutionary political movement, since Islam itself is a revolutionary political movement. The mechanisms of social upheaval and revolution against any perceived “oppressor” are conveniently inherent in Islam, especially as applied to any fatalistic population (i.e. unemployed men between 16-35).
All this is right there in black and white — there are “competing interpretations” among Muslims about what Mohammed proscribed during his life, perhaps taking adopting an alegorical view of the bloodshed that abounds the sacred texts. Admittedly though, there seems to be a very straightforward literal advocacy of violence throughout the sacred texts — you have to read it for yourself.
These attributes have been implied by the media since 9/11, I suppose, but there was always a simultaneous dialogue coming from the “moderate Muslim world,” and by the cultural relativists that gave me the impression that the majority of Muslims didn’t really take all that murder stuff seriously, and that it was a perversion of an otherwise peaceful religion.
For this to be true, this means that there must exist a “reformed” Islam that has modified its dictates to contradict those of Mohammed.
Islam, as a cultural institution that closely follows the dictates of the sacred texts, is opposed to freedom of belief, self-interest, logic, and empiricism. I have always thought that world-transcendent theodicies of all kinds weakened the minds of men, corrupted our potential to survive as the most intelligent life form on earth, and subjugated the meek — but the literal teachings of Islam, unlike most other religions, go against the very fundamental humanistic instinct to preserve human life. Murder of an Infidel is acceptable. And like other world-transcendent theodicies, it lays siege to causality, and replaces it with a dualistic, incoherent “divine will.”
The Jews established a new kind of “people of the book” capable of passing down a complex and overarching social superstructure. The apostles of Jesus created a powerful variant of this social phenomenon with a more aggressive stance on tolerance and proselytizing.
Islam goes to the furthest extreme of “the people of the book” tradition of that era of civilization (no doubt Mohammed was keen to the power of written law) and creates a longitudinal, intergenerational, virulent culture that perpetuates itself through proselytizing (like Christianity) and adds the teeth of violence (jihad).
Furthermore, inherent in Islam are highly specific modes of daily practice and law that prevent the tradition from adapting to new situations and technologies, unlike the constantly reforming and relatively malleable protestant traditions of Europe and the Americas.
So why do “good” people follow these teachings? Why are there apologists for this cult? Quite simply, Islam is simultaneously a beautiful, peaceful, utopian teaching of love for those who subscribe to it: that is, it is an inside / outside game that goes way beyond the dirty looks you get from Christians when you order a neat whiskey at Appelbee’s on Sunday. The tradition of behavior between Muslim brothers and sisters is idealized, utopian in nature, and strikingly similar to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, a global caliphate, devoid of the unbelievers is a peaceful world of kindness, brotherhood, and prosperity on the way to paradise.
Your down with it, or not.
Establishing this utopia, this Caliphate, by means of murder and mass destruction of Infidels (and brothers), if necessary, is the raison d’etre of Islam. And like Christians, eternal life is not on this earth — thus physical causality and immanent justice on this plane of existence is secondary to the final reckoning.
In my humble opinion, that last part alone should be enough to make you nervous; especially if it in anyway impedes on your survival (my raison d’etre).
All religions have a posture towards non-believers. The difference between say, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and Islam, is that if you tell the Muslim that you’re an athiest, and not at all interested in his pamplet, he can cut your head off, and it’s ok with his God.
8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!” This was because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Ones who oppose Allah and His messenger will be severely punished by Allah. We said, “This for you! Taste it and know that the unbelievers will receive the torment of the Fire.”