Friday, June 09, 2006

Religion of Peace

Years ago, I worked with Naseem; he was wise, gracious, and a gifted engineer. A few years ago, I worked with Raz; he was young, dynamic, and a fine engineer. We never discussed faith or politics, but I knew both men were devout Muslims.

Like most Americans, I could not fathom what happened on a beautiful day in September when our country was attacked. Like most, I instinctively knew it was an act of war.

On September 17, 2001, President George Bush, standing with representatives of America's Muslim community, told us: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

In the aftermath, Norman Podhoretz told us how to win a war, which challenged our very existence. Others reminded us of the teachings of Professors Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, who had years before pointed to a "clash of civilizations."

All the while, we were barraged with the constant reminder that Islam is a "religion of peace." Americans were confused by their personal knowledge of peaceful Muslims and the harsh reality that adherents of that faith had willfully slaughtered 3,000 people.

In our oblivious fashion, Americans glossed over Marines butchered in Beirut, soldiers butchered in a disco in Germany, sleeping passengers butchered in the skies over Scotland, airmen butchered in their barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the World Trade Center, Rangers butchered and mutilated in Somalia, diplomats butchered in two embassies in Africa, and sailors butchered when their warship was attacked. We were only concerned about whether the contestant would call his lifeline or ask the audience, for all we wanted was a million dollars and to be left alone.

In the aftermath, our Muslim community mobilized to enlighten an uninformed American public. Notably, the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) seized the moment to clear up our misconceptions. CAIR and others proudly told us there are 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, 7 million Muslims live in our country, and "73 Muslim leaders from all over the world have condemned these attacks in a joint statement." This vanishingly small number of Muslim leaders added to our confusion.

While living in the eastern foothills of Tennessee, I met Naseem where some practice the perils of ritualistic snake handling. Like many, I am confused by my own faith -- the mystery of the Holy Trinity baffles me. For me, the simple beauty of the Five Pillars of Islam is as understandable and wise as the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes.

Trying to make sense of it all, some of us are left with an unresolved conflict between a man riding on a donkey bearing an olive branch preaching his belief and a man riding on a horse wielding a sword preaching his belief. For many Americans, we are left with choosing from stomping dust from our boots or seizing a bloody sword to vanquish our enemies. Wise men from our past have tried to explain these mysteries and answer our questions.

In the last half of the 19th Century, Professor Jacob Burckhardt taught history at the University of Basel, in Switzerland. Nietzsche attended his lectures. While Burckhardt quietly lectured, the Islamic Ottoman Empire precariously held sway over much of the Balkans. On his deathbed, Burckhardt granted permission that his lectures be published. Principally, Burckhardt is known for his writing on the Italian Renaissance. But more importantly for our time, he taught us about the struggle for primacy between three great societal powers: the State, the Religion, and the Culture.

Burckhardt did not try to answer the question which power should hold sway in society or civilization; he simply analyzed the effects on people should one power emerge supreme, while the other powers were held in check. Burckhardt's judgments are harsh; they are ill suited to our modern age. Burckhardt discussed the two centuries of bloody conflict in the West to end the Church's brutal mastery of Europe.

Burckhardt spoke about the "problem" of his time was the "separation of church and state." He told us, "as soon as a state exists which permits freedom of speech, that separation comes about by itself." Today, when we read about 17 heads being found in a fruit box near Zarqawi's final bunker, we may reasonably surmise contrarian voices are not welcomed there. Although, our streets are not littered with ghastly symbolic objects, some Americans believe we are besieged by a priestly horde bent upon silencing all dissent. Clearly, our profound differences cannot be explained by telling us Islam is a "religion of peace" and bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Atta, and Bouyeri are aberrations.

With exacting clarity, Burckhardt told us quite the opposite. More than a hundred years ago, Burckhardt told his Swiss students, "modern American men of culture live without consciousness of history" (Judgments on History and Historians). Does anyone seriously believe that George Bush or Ted Kennedy have delved deeply into the course of human history to be better informed in their political judgments that affect so many?

Burckhardt told us, "we must turn back to Islam, with its stranglehold on national feeling and its miserable constitutional and legal system grafted on to religion, beyond which its people never advanced." Burckhardt told us, "Islam has only one form of polity, of necessity despotic, the consummation of power, secular, priestly, and theocratic." (Reflections on History)

Burckhardt continues, "The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history … of the peoples converted to it." (Judgments on History and Historians)

Other scholars have studied religion and have formed similar judgments. Most notably, Professor Max Weber studied religion. He told us, "Muhammad constructed the commandment of the holy war involving the subjugation of the unbelievers to political authority and economic domination of the faithful." He continues, "To even a greater extent than the Crusades, religious war for the Muslims was essentially an economic enterprise directed towards the acquisition of large holdings of real estate, because it was primarily oriented to feudal interest in land." Weber spoke about the importance of the belief in predestination for Muslims, and this belief "often produced a complete obliviousness of self, in the interest of faith in and fulfillment of the religious commandment of a holy war for the conquest of the world." Weber told us, "Islam did not confront the ultimate problem of the relationship between religious ethics and secular institutions, which is the fundamental problem of the relation between law and religion." (The Sociology of Religion)

Last, we find the unconventional thoughts of a man who is unsure whether he is an atheist or an agnostic, but whose writings are imprinted with the reflections of a deeply religious man. Professor Bertrand Russell told us, "It was the duty of the [Muslim] faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam." Russell told us, "The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion, were not a very religious race; the motives for their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion." (The History of Western Philosophy)

However harsh these scholarly judgments may be, their unpleasant truths cannot be trumped by an assertion of peace. Thus it seems, until Islamic nations establish the primacy of the rule of law, and forswear century old religious tenets of conquest and subjugation, Islam cannot claim to be a religion of peace.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

https://www.fivepillarsof-islam.com/ some of updated information on this blog.

9:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home