Author: George Neumayr
Publication: American Prowler.Org
Date: October 16, 2002
URL: http://www.theamericanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_10_16_0_20_53
If Jerry Falwell had described Quakerism
as a violent religion, would Quakers have rioted? Would Quaker preachers
have called for his death?
No, because it is not a religion
with violent elements. But calling Islam a religion of war is dangerous
precisely because elements of violence reside in it. The violent Islamic
reaction to Falwell's remarks tends to confirm their validity.
"Shiite Muslim clerics in Lebanon
and Iran reacted with rage to Falwell's remarks, and an envoy of Iran's
supreme leader called for his death," reported CBS. "Iranian cleric Mohsen
Mojtahed Shabestari, addressing weekly Friday prayers in the northwestern
town of Tabriz, said the Rev. Jerry Falwell was a 'mercenary and must be
killed,' the Farsi- language daily Abrar reported Saturday."
Why is it so politically and diplomatically
necessary from the PC point of view to call Islam a religion of peace?
Because in many quarters it isn't one. We must all pretend that it is a
religion of peace so as not to provoke war.
The requisite apology has now been
extracted from Falwell. So we can now safely resume our slumbers.
The West used to condemn Islam and
promote Christianity. Now it condemns Christianity and promotes Islam.
The consensus of the entire Christian
West for centuries was that Mohammed spread his religion through arms.
But in our suicidal sophistication this is no longer an acceptable thought.
Falwell is a boob and a bigot, and that's that.
Apparently Edward Gibbon was also
gravely confused in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when he described
Mohammed as a man of arms. Gibbon called him an "eloquent fanatic," said
that his "operation of force and persuasion, of enthusiasm and fear, continually
acted on each other till every barrier yielded to the [Muslims]," and observed
that "his voice invited the Arabs to freedom and victory, to arms and rapine,
to the indulgence of their darling passions in this world and the other."
Poor Gibbon. He just didn't have
the benefit of a subscription to the New York Times. Now he would know
that Mohammed was a seventh-century Gandhi.
And what can be said of Thomas Aquinas
and Hilaire Belloc? In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas describes Islam as
a false and dangerous religion, which combines truths with "fables," twists
the Old and New Testaments into a "fabrication" of Mohammed's own, and
seduces "people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence
of the flesh urges us."
Aquinas said Mohammed's claim as
God's prophet rested on the "powers of his arms" -- not a very convincing
sign of holiness since it is a sign not "lacking even to robbers and tyrants."
Nor was Aquinas impressed by Mohammed's
followers: "Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers,
utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed
forced others to become his follower's by the violence of his arms."
Belloc said the same, writing that
Islam began "with the attack of a very few thousand desert horsemen, who
were as much drawn by desire for loot as by their enthusiasm for new doctrines.
There was no organization, and the moment the first bands had succeeded
in battle, the leaders began fighting among themselves: not only fighting,
but murdering. The Mohammedan temper was not tolerant. It was, on the contrary,
fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, nor even curiosity
about, those from whom it differed. It was absurdly vain of itself, regarding
with contempt the high Christian culture about it. It still so regards
it even today."
Today's Western intellectuals know
better. They are sure that Islam can be squeezed into their own worldview
as long as everyone negotiates with Muslim countries and speaks nicely
about them.
Western intellectuals have found
a new totalitarianism to be dupes for, and a new outlet for hatred of their
own culture. Jerry Falwell is a fool, they say. But what could be more
foolish than assuming harsh truths will go way if you just ignore them?
(George Neumayr is a frequent contributor
to The American Prowler.)
