« The Muhammad Cartoons - A Sophisticated Perspective | Main | Porter Goss: 'Leak of classified info giving terrorists edge over CIA' »

February 10, 2006

An Islamic double-standard

Topics: Understanding Islam

Nathanael Blake quotes William F. Buckley Jr in his piece at The Daily Baromert: "There is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest." But that's just a warm-up, before sharpening his pencil cutting loose on what he percieves as Islam's double standard:

With his usual insight, Buckley has located the dog that not only isn't barking, but has apparently taken an eternal vow of silence. As Muslim mobs torch embassies and Muslim governments begin boycotts in response to European newspapers' publication of cartoons mocking Mohammad, there has been little surprise at such savagery.

There have been plenty of platitudes about respect and dialogue, many mealy-mouthed statements about the value of a free press, and bountiful bromides about tolerance. What there hasn't been is any serious inquiry into the special status Islam enjoys.

Let Christians so much as stage a peaceful protest against the latest "art" to blaspheme Christianity, and the liberal media chorus will issue a cacophony of condemnation. Not at the offending art, of course, or the tasteless artist, but at those bourgeoisie boobs who had the audacity to display disgust at the demeaning of their religion. Art, we are told, exists to break taboos and transgress standards.

When Muslims worldwide go on violent rampages over a few caricatures published in a newspaper they would never have heard of otherwise, no one is surprised, and the storm of disapprobation that would arise if anyone else did such a thing is forestalled. Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously: Muslims die in protests over supposed insults to Islam, ho-hum.

And Christianity is considered ripe for ridicule, as it is thought Puritanical and hierarchical, repressive and patriarchal. Islam, of course, possesses such attributes in spades (Sura 4:38: but chide [women] for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear ... and scourge them), but it's awfully gauche to say so. Also, doing so isn't nearly so safe as Christian-baiting; there's no Moral Majority equivalent of Mohammad Bouyeri, the chap who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Islam.

Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies. The only combatant a modern Muslim martyr is sure of killing is himself; he prefers that the others be women and children.

Oh, I'm sorry; I forgot that those extremists don't represent the majority of Muslims, who are kind and peaceable. I suppose that I'll have to suppress the knowledge that the Palestinian majority just elected a terrorist group to govern them.

There are, to be sure, individual Muslims who are quite nice, and even a few Muslim countries that aren't run by tyrannical kleptocrats or theocrats. But on average, Islamic nations are oppressive and poor.

Enough sampling, you need to click for the rest... Blake pulls no punches in identifying what he believes to be the problem with Islam, and says that it has much to do with the fact that Islam is an immanentist religion. While Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is not of this world, Islam holds that it is the duty of Muslims to bring the kingdom of God to this world. Islam allows no distinction between religious and governmental authority, and proclaims that good Muslims will always triumph over their infidel enemies. As Blake points out, that is a far cry from a metaphysical view that inclines toward tolerance and religious freedom, and "moderate" Muslims that are constantly touted need to demonstrate that they have the will and ability to lead their religion out of barbarism.

Posted by Richard at February 10, 2006 10:06 AM

Articles Related to Understanding Islam:

• An Islamic double-standard - Feb 10, 2006