December 4, 2002

IT'S THE TOTALITARIANISM, STUPID:

Islam's Outdated Domination Theology: Only when Muslims accept religious pluralism will peace have a chance. (Yossi Klein Halevi, December 4 2002, LA Times)
With the globalization of Islamic terrorism and mob violence, it is becoming increasingly absurd to ascribe the threat to a fanatic fringe. Yet between those who dismiss the growing Islamic assault on the West as marginal and those agitating for a war of civilizations, a third way exists: offering Islam the respect it deserves as one of the world's great faiths while insisting that it confront its outmoded theology of domination.

Muslims who note that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance are right, but only in a medieval sense. Muslim law does indeed permit freedom of religion for Jews and Christians, who are cited in the Koran as "peoples of the book." But the prerequisite for Muslim tolerance is Muslim rule. Even Muslim Spain, the medieval world's most inspiring example of religious coexistence, was premised on the primacy of Islamic dominance.

Like Christianity, Islam is a universal faith that envisions the ultimate transformation of the world in its image. But unlike large parts of Christianity in our time, Islam has yet to consider the option of religious pluralism based on the equality of faiths.

For Islam, historical experience reinforces theology. As historian Bernard Lewis notes, Islam is the only monotheistic religion whose founder lived to see the triumph of his faith. Because Islam knew power from its very inception, Muslims came to see dominance as their birthright. In the past, Islam proved capable of magnanimity toward its non-Muslim subjects. But it hasn't proved its capacity for equality. [...]

Winning this war, then, requires a two-pronged approach. First, the West must respond to aggression without sentimentality or self-recrimination. At the same time, we must support those who are struggling to help Islam evolve so that it can become again a crucial shaper of civilization.


That part of Mr. Lewis's analysis really leaps out. Both Judaism and Christianity developed as religions of enslaved or otherwise oppressed peoples, but Islam was a dominant force in government from very near its birth. In a sense then, the possibility of the secular (or at least non-sectarian) state is a necessary component of Judeo-Christianity, while in Islam the state is a logical component of the faith. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 4, 2002 10:28 PM
Comments

I doubt the Canaanites would have regarded

the Hebrews as the ones who were oppressed,

even if we disregard the scholarship that says

they were the same people anyway.



And Christianity got nowhere until to acquired

the Roman army. Fox, in "Pagans and

Christians," estimates that at most 3 or 4%

of the Roman Empire was Christian (approximately

zero percent outside the cities) before

Constantine.



It is true that Islam is the only major religion

to develop its own army as part of its

theology (Hinduism's situation is obscure),

and that probably explains much.



Magnanimity is a funny word for Lewis to use.

He is notoriously soft-headed about

actual Muslim behavior. There has never been

a generation when some Muslim somewhere

wasn't teaching the religion of peace by

offering to chop off the head of anyone who

didn't convert.



Somebody should put the 100,000 skulls of

Samarkand on a Christmas postage stamp so

we all know what we're talking about.

Posted by: Harry at December 5, 2002 11:27 PM
« GENERALISSIMO FRANCISCO FRANCO IS STILL DEAD: | Main | MULTILATERAL UNILATERALISM: »