In a hard hitting speech to German university students last Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI (he's German too) at long last told it like it is. He said that violence, embodied in the Muslim idea of jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God's plan, while the West was so beholden to reason that Islam could not understand it. He added that the Prophet Mohammed's command to his followers to spread his new faith by means of the sword was "contrary to God's Nature."
As a political statement, it was as incorrect as one can get – but then he is the Pope. Also, his barbs were not aimed solely at Islam, but at the growing "secularism" in the West; the fashion, if you will, to restrict God to the Church and disassociate Him from daily living. The Pope was obviously concerned about his "flock"- mass attendance in Europe and America has fallen to under 15 per cent – but this trend is observed in all branches of Christianity.
For the purpose of this article, however, I would like to focus on the pontiff's observations on Islam. As I am neither Christian nor Muslim, I can perhaps look at this conundrum more objectively; uninfluenced by passion. For too long have the leaders of the "free" world, been pussyfooting around this issue. They talk about "good" Islam and "bad" Islam – and end up antagonizing everybody. The stark truth is that – in many aspects - Islam, both as a religion and a way of life, is diametrically opposite to Christianity. The meek are not blessed in Islam; they are probably regarded with scorn. Christ spread his religion by performing miracles: Mohammed did it by sending out his armies to conquer foreign lands and forcing the "infidels" to convert – or else.
Let me make it clear that I am no Islamophobe. I do believe that the vast majority of Muslims are decent, law abiding individuals; who value human life as much as anyone else. I just do not buy into this notion – so favored by spin doctors – that the terrorists have a "different" interpretation of the Koran. There is no "good" Koran and "bad" Koran. The Koran is more than a religious treatise: like the Jewish Torah, it is a detailed set of rules on how a "believer" is expected to live his life. It leaves no room for ambiguity. Yes, the holy book was written 14 centuries ago, when the world was a vastly different place, and the intelligent Muslim understands that some of its verses (for example, the four wives dispensation) have to adapt in accordance with modern civilization. But there is no way that one group of people can interpret a passage in the Koran as a license to kill all "unbelievers" – women and children included – while another group reads the same passage and concludes that killing of innocents is absolutely forbidden.
Throughout history, rulers and prelates have used religion to further their own selfish ambitions – and manipulated it to mean whatever their gullible subjects will swallow: yesterday's heretic is today's saint. Henry VIII booted out the Pope and invented his own church, when the pontiff refused to grant him a divorce. My point is that these guys used religion as a pawn in a spiritual chess game that ensured that they always emerged as the winners. They were not seeking rewards in heaven, but right here on earth. They did not die for their religion. They made the other dumb suckers die for their religion (forgive the liberty, General Patton).
That is the chilling difference with the modern Islamic terrorist. He is seeking a reward in his brainwashed vision of heaven – and he is quite happy to die for it. He genuinely believes that stuff about martyrdom and paradise and the vestal virgins. That is why he keeps winning. No police force or army in the world can prevail against individuals who have a total disregard for human lives – their own included.
Or maybe they can. But not as long as they continue to play by "civilized" rules. The human rights enshrined in the American Constitution are perhaps the most noble ever bequeathed to the human race – but they mean didley squat to the terrorists. To them, every American is a shaitan (devil) and has no rights whatsoever – not even the right to live. There is no such thing as "collateral damage" in their vocabulary – and Western concern for sparing non-combatants is derided and regarded as a sign of weakness.
I don't know how many of you saw that excellent docudrama "The Path to 9/11" that was telecast recently. If you did, you'd know that – long before 9/11 – the Americans had Osama Bin Laden dead in their sights on at least two occasions. It was a slam dunk, but they couldn't follow through. Why? In the first instance, when the American and their allies from the Northern Alliance had Osama, Al-Zawahari and the whole gang literally surrounded (they could see him, for Pete's sake) the big boys in Washington hesitated, because a snatch could risk the lives of innocent bystanders. When Clinton unleashed those cruise missiles on Afghanistan after the US embassy attacks in Africa, the CIA had a positive fix on Osama's location; but diplomatic niceties mandated that The US Secretary of State first inform the President of Pakistan – who lost no time in warning OBL to skedaddle out of there pretty damn quick.
The harsh reality is that you cannot act "civilized" with an enemy who has only one rule – and that is to murder you. Statements like "the United States does not practice torture" and "America does not assassinate foreign "leaders" (which, like it or not, Osama is) sound very noble and warm the cockles of patriotic American hearts but, in practical terms, they are meaningless. Do you think that "bad guy" sitting in his cell at Guantanamo Bay is going to be grateful to you for reading him his Miranda rights? Get real folks. I know there are many decent Americans who believe that if their countrymen stoop to the level of the terrorists, they are equally culpable. Perhaps they are right – in a perfect world. But this world is far from perfect. If America hopes to win the war on terror, they will have to get down and dirty; take the fight to the enemy; use their own tactics against them. Sure, Americans will no longer be the "good guys" in the rest of the world – very many Americans may even feel justifiably ashamed and disgusted – but, sometimes, that is the price you have to pay.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 16
And hey, all you Rosie ODonnell fans out there, I would rther be at Gitmo then listening to her babble her nonsense. Did anyone ever tell you if the Radical (and not so radical Islam nations) had there way you would never hear her anyway? Possibly the only good thing if there is any about the enemy, stifle teh enemy within like Rosie.
You certainly did a fine job making a difficult subject crystal clear. Well done.
I do question your statement that attendance at mass has dropped to 15% in the U.S. I know the such is the case in western European countries, but I thought the U.S. was still well above that. How did you come to the 15% number for the U.S.???
Thanks again for such a fine article.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Sorry about that. I had assumed that the 15% came from you and the statement was applied to "mass attendance in Europe and America".
Thanks, Ben
you claim that the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.uh.) forced infidels to convert-or else. Where did you hear that hogwash?
The truth is, he NEVER forced anyone-when Makkah was captured, he had the open choice of killing all its inhabitants, who had been prosecuting him for years.But the Prophet(p.b.u.h) set the world's greatest example of mercy and forgave ALL. Not a single person was forced to convert.Time and time again, he stressed the importance of peaceful preaching,sending kings and emperors letters of invitation rather than armies.In the Quran it has been clearly stated:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion..."
How,then,can you support your claims?
I'll admit that certain Muslims do tend to go to the extreme, using force as a means of conversion....but that's not my point.
I meant that you had absolutely no right to insinuate that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) advocated such conduct. Muslims who force people to convert are violating Islam's rules....not following them.
In the article main, it was averred that the meek are not blessed in Islam; they are probably regarded with scorn. On the other hand, no other religion is deprived centric than Islam is with the twin doctrines of 'O God, no life is but the life hereafter' and 'O God, no good is but the good hereafter'. In her comment Ms. Tan S had stated that 'the Prophet (p.b.u.h) set the world's greatest example of mercy and forgave ALL. Not a single person was forced to convert. Obviously she is not aware of the historical fact that with Muhammad's intent some seven-hundred Jews of Bani Qurayaz were beheaded for not agreeing to embrace Islam.
It is stated in the article that Christ spread his religion by performing miracles: Mohammed did it by sending out his armies to conquer foreign lands and forcing the "infidels" to convert – or else. Well, whatever the respective Prophets did to propagate the faith they founded, for the Popes and the Caliphs who succeeded the end remained the same, though the means might have varied. Well, had not the previous Pope gave the religious call to make it a Christian Asia in the 21st Century?
Be that as it may, there is what I would call as 'dichotomy of Islam' is that Quran advocates peace and violence in the same breathe. While peace gets exemplified in its Meccan suras, the Yathrib tirades against infidels have the potent to poison the mind of those Muslims that get fed upon those. Naturally, Muslims in general either are unaware of these inimical verses in their holy scripture or choose to ignore them as unsuitable to their temperament or station in life and/or both. But it is the diehard fanatics who swear by these very ayats and use them to indoctrinate the youth and the gullible co-religionists, or even the zealot converts, into donning suicide suits for their tryst with their allotted quota of 72 or so ( I don't recall readily) eyed virgins in the Paradise.
If some of the readers wish to have an insight into the mind of the Musalman and the psyche of the martyr, among others aspects of communal problem, they may like to pick up my "Puppets of Faith: theory of communal strife' self-published in Dec 2003, which is being distributed in India by Jaico Book House.
Those that survive either chill out or become career criminals. Islam has an excellent recruitment tool in the prisons.
By the way, did you know that the word penitentiary refers to a place where miscreants can repent and be penitent? Nicely named by that most non-violent of Christian organizations The Society of Friends. Their original idea was sure hijacked.
You can't change male DNA with prayer; you have to stop giving it an excuse like religion, culture, identification, poverty, lack of education and so on. No doubt these factor in, but if you don't believe me go watch "West Side Story." When you're a Jet...
The incident of the Banu Quraiza tribe is entirely differnet from what you make it out to be.
When the Prophet (p.b.u.h) migrated to Madinah, the Jews were already present in the city . The Prophet(p.b.u.h.) signed a treaty with them,"The Charter of Madinah." An important clause of the treaty was that the Jews would not be harassed while following their religion, nor would they be forced to convert.The Treaty also stated that in case of an attack on Madinah, BOTH the Muslims and the Jews would protect the city.This makes perfect sense,seeing how both parties were equal inhabitants of the city.
However, only 5 years after the migration, this Treaty was violated by the Jews. A large army from Makkah beseiged Madinah, and the Banu Quraiza openly joined hands with them.This was high treason- they were openly attempting to ruin the Muslims.At this point, it is worthwhile mentioning that for years, thr Jews had been mocking the Muslims,making offensive poetry out of the Quranic revelations and publicly harassing Muslim girls.
After the muslims were victoruious in the aforesaid battle, it became clear that action had to be taken against the Jews, who had so brazenly violated the Treaty.The decision was made in accordance with the Jewish Law of the Old Testament - this was the reason the men of Banu Quraiza were beheaded.Conversion to Islam was not a factor.
In response to your averrment that conversion was never a factor in the beheading those sevenhunbdred or more Jews, I would like present the following excerpt from Martin Lings "Muhammad - his life based on the earliest sources"
"As to the Bani Qurayzah, Ka'b suggested to them that since many of them believed Muhammad to be a Prophet they should ener his religion and save their lives and their property. But they said that death was preferable, and that they would have nothing but the Torah and the law of Moses."
This would naturally bring into question your averrment that conversion to Islam was not a factor.in those ghastly beheadings.
Nevertheless, even if you were to justify the killings on the grounds of realpolitic, as you do, it woud not lend credence to your argument that "the Prophet(p.b.u.h) set the world's greatest example of mercy and forgave ALL"