It
seems in today’s Western progressive narrative regarding the religion of Islam,
a great emphasis is put on the fact that Jihadists or Militant Muslims are not Muslim. Their affiliation to their
religion is rebuked as ‘bad’ Islam, while those ever elusive ‘peaceful’ Muslims
are correctly practicing the faith of Islam.1 I put peaceful in
quotations because I think we will find Bigfoot before we find this truly peaceful
(not simply apathetic) contingency of Islam that would openly reject terrorist
organizations and condemn them on a cultural scale.2 I will cite the
Imam who spoke to the press during the Orlando police briefing to the public
after the Pulse nightclub shooting. Although he asked that all people of faith
pray for the victims and thanked law enforcement, he explicitly asked the crowd not to jump to conclusions while not
rebuking the action of the shooter, or even alluding to the fact that if this
was a terrorist attack, it was an unjustified or illicit act. Yet according to
the progressive West, terrorists have hijacked the religion of Islam along with
the planes. They are bad people and more importantly, not Muslim. Let’s break
down the argument: can any rational person see that terrorists are bad people?
Yes. That is easy enough. But how practical is the logic that terrorists are
‘bad’ Muslims? Can one truly define Islam to a point of orthodoxy, and reject
all other claims to the term?
Muhammad
established an ideology that has become a theocratic dictatorship that rules
the political, cultural, and religious faculties of the Middle East and the
other lands to which it has both spread and become the majority opinion.3
Because Islam establishes a basic political and cultural rule of conduct, it
serves as a political regime in simpler and easier terms than it does as a life
philosophy or theological creed. But to make the claim that Islam has a definitive theology beyond the
monotheistic argument or any absolute
truisms beyond God himself cannot be reconciled with reality. It is a
‘theology’ in the same way one might consider the entire realm of non-Catholic
Christianity a ‘theology.’4 Protestantism, or non-Catholicism, is a
term which describes what isn’t there,
instead of a definitive term exactly describing itself. There are over 30,000
denominations of Protestantism; each with their own definition of what being a
Christian actually means. However slight, each of these sub-religions disagree
on matters of faith, theology, philosophy, liturgy (or lack thereof), music,
preaching, and even disagree to some degree on exactly who Jesus was! And,
since Islam grew out of the lingering Arian heresy,5 it only makes
this discussion more ironic. It is easy to see that the unitive nature of the
term Protestant can be very misleading… because there is no such thing as a
Protestant per se!! And neither is there such thing as a Muslim in the strict,
definable sense. If anyone were to define a Protestant or Muslim, the
definition would have to be so vague and inclusive as to include even those
religions who call themselves Christian or Muslim who by obvious lack of
evidence could not be convicted of the crime (i.e. the Westboro Baptist
Church). Because the term Protestant by its very nature is inclusive, meaning
‘everything else outside of Catholicism,’ it can no more describe itself than
it can help you understand in any specific terms what it means to be a
Protestant. It is no more descriptive than the word ‘tree!’ And the term Muslim
is just as flimsy.
Conversely, if
one claims to be a Catholic, they are definitively saying something! They are
saying a great AMEN to the teachings of the Church. A definitive tradition of
teaching handed down through the centuries, compiled in a book called the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. Catholic or not, I cannot stress how valuable this book
is! If you ever wondered what the Church teaches on any matter of faith,
morality, or dogma, the Catechism is the
definitive source. No guesswork, no here say, no gimmicks or questioning of
authenticity (and no self-proclaimed Catholics rejecting Church teaching and
instead giving you their own opinions!). And it includes the why to the what! So
that the reader can see that these are not arbitrary or opinionated man-made declarations,
but rather the thoughtful, and unabashed interpretation of Christ’s teaching
(and if you don’t believe me, I dare you! You can find a free copy online at
the USCCB website. Read any portion
of it, and argue against the Catechism’s logic, the faithfulness to Scripture
and to the teachings of Christ, or the raw and real delivery of the facts
without here say). To say that one is Catholic is to say “I am a Christian, and
that means exactly this.” There is no
relativism and nothing left open to interpretation. Instead of saying that we
are a forest of ‘trees,’ it would be more conducive to saying that we are a
family of ‘oaks.’ There are unique qualities that define who we are and what we
do and what we believe. We are not identical, and there are still many
variations and micro-families within our Church, but we are a definitive body
of believers, believing exactly the
same things. Only in this situation do you have the ‘Orthodox’ view, where
there are real and actual characteristics by which you can say, “yes, this is
Catholic;” or “no, this is not Catholic.” This is an enigma that does not exist
in other world religions and which is rejected by the sub-religions, or
de-nominations, of Christianity. So it comes as no surprise to me that when
this idea is floated out there that terrorists are ‘not Muslim,’ no one
questions it or can put their finger on a good counter argument.
To say that one
is Muslim is to describe themselves in the same way as Protestants and trees,
to vaguely describe oneself to an undefinable fault. There is no such thing as
a definitive Muslim; no such thing as ‘orthodox’ Muslim teaching by which one
can be judged as Muslim or non-Muslim. Case in point: terrorist Abu Bark
al-Bagdhadi6 and Professor Dr. Zudi Jasser7 use the same
five pillars, except one commits terrorism and one condemns it. It is a grave
injustice to the religion of Islam to saddle it with this notion of orthodoxy,
as it is incompatible with Islam; and a misnomer that Westerners (especially
Catholics) would with an unstudied air give it without question. But, put in
the proper context, one can easily see that we are not comparing apples to
apples, or even fruits to fruits. Viewed in the light of the relative ideology
that it is, Islam can be seen for what it is; a very loosely organized body of
so-called ‘believers’ whose overarching “definition” is even more vague than
the “definition” binding Protestants together.8 At least Protestants
have a common denominator in Jesus being the Savior. Muslims must acknowledge
the teachings of the prophet Muhammed, but don’t have to agree on who we was,
or what he was even trying to communicate. Everything is open to
interpretation! Which is why perhaps a scholarly Muslim would look past the
actions of arguably the most violent man in history in order to see the ‘good
and peaceful ends’ he was trying to accomplish; and why that same Muslim can
condemn a Jihadist’s actions as being ‘non-Muslim,’ even when the Jihadist’s
actions are eerie echoes of Islam’s founder.
Currently, Islam
is in great turmoil. Whether it is preparing for war or experiencing labor
pains is still uncertain. One thing is for sure however: It is a religion
greatly divided between those that would follow Muhammad, and those that want
to lead him into the 21st century. I think most scholars, Muslim or
not, would concede the fact that if the peaceful Muslim narrative were to ever
become the prevailing Islamic ideology; the religion of Islam will have to go
through a radical transformation. And that can only re-iterate what I am
saying— that Islam isn’t even an overarching concept of a religion; it is the
most relative of ideologies open to the wildest or the tamest of
interpretations. And those that seek to tame the beast, however noble their
endeavor, cannot rightly claim their view point as ‘orthodox’ Islam any more
than a terrorist can. Indeed they have less right to the name Muslim than the
terrorist! For if teaching and dogma cannot be relied upon to define what a
‘good’ Muslim looks like, then perhaps we can look to history for a decided
answer. But you won’t like what you find; I am afraid that death, jihad,
fatwas, oppressive caliphates, the jizyah tax, convert or die, and the killing
of infidels has been the norm of the religion of Islam, and the wide and open
practice of historical Muslims (beginning with Muhammad himself). These acts of
violence and terror, enslavement, and subterfuge not only dwarf the atrocities
of the Crusades and the ills of “western imperialism,” they are still
existing!! And let us not forget that this has been paired with an
unexplainable and unchecked cultural acceptance from self-proclaimed Muslims
that have allowed these barbaric ideologies and actions to survive for
centuries. Where are there Martin Luther Kings of the Middle East? Where are
there peaceful uprisings in Mecca, Jerusalem, Cairo, or Medina? Despite all of
those ‘peaceful’ Muslims, barbarism is still allowed to remain commonplace
today, and when the evil western world wants to deliver these peaceful peoples
from the wrath of terrorism, we are only met with a sordid hatred and a
confused repulsion.
What does the
future hold for the Islamic religion? Who could say? But let us remember what
we are saying when we invoke the term ‘Muslim.’ It is not an orthodox teaching,
it is not a solid ideology or a launch point to a definitive destination. And
the last thing that we can do is describe a Muslim as violent or peaceful, and
declare that other interpretations of this “religion” are unworthy of the name.
It seems ironic that a cultural agenda hell bent on proclaiming that there is
no truth (truth is simply what you make it),9 would have the (guts?)
to stand up for the most relative of religious ideologies (to which they are
terribly ignorant) to claim that a certain brand of Islam is the ‘true’ Islam.
Do Muslims fit into those groups of ‘lesser’ people, like American minorities,
that only fit into a progressive’s worldview as a poor and lowly people that
they must stoop low to help? Regardless of how ‘peaceful’ Islam is marketed, it
will not stop violent terrorists from committing atrocious acts in the name of
Islam. For that, it would take a definitive choice on behalf of Muslims
themselves to reject these men and their actions, and an uprising from within
to create a peaceful Caliphate. One which can rule over their broken lands,
admonishing and justly punishing those that seek to promote this violent Islam.
But, this would take a certain ‘orthodoxizing’ of their religion, and a
powerful ownership of Islam’s terrible and violent past, and a radical transformation
of Middle Eastern religion, ideology, and thinking. To become a peaceful
religion, Islam will have to be radically different than it was yesterday, and
far more deliberate in its self-conversion today. Until then, we must reject
the argument that Islam is a ‘peaceful’ religion. They have shown historically
by example that Islam is far from peaceful, and if they have not been openly
supportive of terrorism, they are deliberately apathetic toward it.10
Where is the evidence to the contrary? That one letter that that one Imam wrote
that one time, or that one time that Muslims protected Christians during prayer
doesn’t cut it. Sorry libs. Until the Middle East is a place where Muslims live
in peace and equality with their neighbors, until women share the same rights
with men, until slavery and human trafficking are condemned, and until moral
law, decency, and dignity can become part of the theocracy which they so desire
to be ruled by, then we can’t call this a peaceful people of a peaceful religion.
A region where rogue bands of terrorists overthrow the sad excuses for
“governments” on a weekly basis, and a downtrodden people willingly suffer at
the hands of their rulers to see them also inflict violence on the world in the
name of Islam is a broken paradigm, a broken world, and all things besides
peaceful. The terrorist must become the enemy, the apathetic Muslim his friend,
and they must both be staunchly rejected by Muslims in mass. Until that is the
broad and sweeping convention of the Islamic world, there is no room for peace,
and until they establish peace as orthodox teaching, we will be playing a
dangerous game, just as the previous 14 centuries of ‘westerners’ have
discovered. The tide must be turned on this love/hate religion before Muslims can
live up to the progressive’s accusation that they are peaceful. We all pray, in
the absence of conversion of course, that this would become a reality. Until
then, we are only placing ourselves at the mercy of dangerous men: both the
progressive tailor who would pull the wool over our eyes, and the literalist Muslim who has no intention of wearing sheep’s
clothing.
1 Armstrong, Karen The
True, Peaceful Face of Islam TIME magazine, September 23, 2001 http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,175987,00.html
1 Said, Edward Orientalism,
2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVC8EYd_Z_g
2 Kichlow, Ben Why
Won’t Muslims Condemn Islamic Terror? WND, December 6, 2015 http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/why-wont-muslims-condemn-islamic-terror/#!
3 Rocca, FJ Why
Islamic Theocracy is anti-Freedom Eagle Rising, May 2015 http://eaglerising.com/22033/why-islamic-theocracy-is-anti-freedom/
3 Said, Edward Orientalism,
2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVC8EYd_Z_g
4 Spencer, Jeremy How
Many Sects in Islam? Why is Their Disagreement on the Number? Quora, https://www.quora.com/How-many-sects-in-Islam-Why-is-there-a-disagreement-on-the-number
5 Vidmar, John The
Catholic Church Throughout the Ages Paulist Press, pg. 57
6 Google Search: Who
is the Leader of ISIS? https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=who+is+the+leader+of+isis%3F
7Cary, Mary Kate Yes,
Moderate Muslims Do Denounce Terrorism, US News, December 2015 http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015-12-18/yes-moderate-muslims-do-denounce-terrorism-though-the-media-ignores-it
8 The Religion of
Peace https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/index.aspx
9 Barron, Tom The
Left’s Moral Relativism, American Thinker, March 25, 2013 http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/03/the_lefts_moral_relativism.html
10 Warner, Bill The
Study of Political Islam, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
No comments:
Post a Comment