Islam Revisited

Quite some time ago I posted a blog, “Boom-Boom for Boom-Boom”, in which I argued that the Muslim suicide bombers were actually simply selfish:  killing innocents so they could go to Heaven and get their 72 virgins.   Recently I read a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, by Robert Spencer.  Like most of these “PIG” books, it takes a fairly strong viewpoint which is 180 degrees opposite what the Blue State people would have us believe, although it explains quite conveniently why some Muslims behave the way they do in much of the Middle East.

 First question, though.  If there is a God, surely there must be a Devil.  We’ll call him Satan.  From Abraham all the way up to John the Baptist, and then Jesus, God had sent a series of prophets down to Earth to tell us what He wanted us to do.  The biggie was Moses and his 10^th Commandments. 

 Where are Satan’s prophets?  Why didn’t he send anyone?  And does he, or did he, have a son (or daughter) to send down to us?  How would we know?  Would Satan’s prophet admit being from Satan?  Or would he claim to be from God?

 The reason this question comes up is because of the nature of the Koran, of Islam, and of Muhammed.  I was stunned to read Dante’s Inferno and see that Dante put Muhammed in Hell, as a fraud.  Presumably what he meant was that Muhammed claimed to be from God and led millions of people astray, away from God’s path.

C. S. Lewis, in The Last Battle (as the title indicates, it’s the last book in the Lion, Witch & Wardrobe series) suggests that the “God” of the Muslims, Tash, i.e. Allah, is really Satan.

For his part, Spencer brings up a number of important points, although he falls well short of Lewis’ conclusion.

1.   For all this talk of the Crusades, what apologists for angry Muslims leave out is that the Muslims invaded Christian Europe centuries before the Crusades, expressly to conquer and convert – or kill – the Christians.  I recall back in Paris we learned about Charles Martel, the French warrior who defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Tours in 732 and sent them reeling back into Spain.  Moreover, the Crusades were a reaction to Muslims restricting access of Christians to Jerusalem and ambushing pilgrim caravans.  If US current foreign policy is a resurgence of the medieval Crusades, why do we form alliances with Muslim countries - including Saudi Arabia, which has implemented much of the Sharia in its own law?  Why didn’t we ban Islam from Iraq after defeating Saddam Hussein or from Afghanistan after defeating the Taliban?  Why is Turkey in NATO?   The simple answer is that the Crusades are a useful rallying cry to elicit anger among Muslims against the Western, Christian countries, but it has absolutely nothing to do with current US or NATO foreign policy towards the Middle East. 

 2.  The earlier portions of Koran which are more tolerant and lenient date from when Muhammed was in Mecca, which at that time was pagan and very unsympathetic to his views.  The later, more violent sections – which Muslim clerics consistently agree supersede the earlier sections – date from when Muhammed was in Medina, where he found a more cooperative crowd.  Whereas the Bible is the opposite: the Old Testament is the heavy-duty, violent part – e.g. Sodom & Gomorrah blasted out of existence, flood eradicates all but Noah and his family on the Ark, David leads armies against Philistines – and the New Testament gives us mellow, laid-back, tolerant Jesus.  Jesus was cool (“Peace be with you.”), Muhammed was extremely violent and intolerant (“join us or DIE!”).   Not only was Jesus a pacifist, if you read Ben-Hur (the 1959 movie doesn’t talk about this) you’ll understand that many of his followers hoped that Jesus would raise an army and throw the Romans out.  They were disappointed when he preached peace and allowed himself to be crucified.  He died for our sins.  Contrast that with Muhammed, who was essentially a warlord and general – a very successful one.  Granted, there are, and have been, bloodthirsty Christians invoking Jesus’ name to justify their atrocities, and there are peaceful, tolerant Muslims.  Even Dante recognized “virtuous pagans.”  But Jesus preached peace and love, Muhammed preached war and death.

 3.   According to the Koran, Muslims are not to make friends with “infidels” (nonbelievers), they can lie and kill them with impunity, and only three “fates” are open to unbelievers:  convert, pay tribute, or die.  We go from Jesus, who was extremely tolerant and pacifist, to “kill the nonbelievers.”  Practically everything in the Koran carries the death penalty, and anything goes so long as it advances the cause of Islam. 

            Spencer’s point is that the craziest, nastiest, most murderous behavior we see from Muslims in the world today is not an aberration but actually condoned and encouraged by the Koran and the Hadith (adjunct interpretations).  Suicide bombers are not defying, corrupting or perverting Islam, rather they are following its instructions, whereas the peaceful Muslims here at home are ignoring their marching orders from Muhammed and are not “true Muslims.”  But the world is full of Catholics (myself included) who don’t exactly obey all the Pope’s commands.  Most Americans claim to believe in God, but only a fraction of them actually go to church or actively follow any specific denomination.  The irony of Muslims pushing for Sharia in non-Muslim countries (e.g. Western Europe) is that you can probably find a very substantial number of Iranians – devout Shi’ite Muslims, no less - who would rather see an end to the theocracy in their country.  Again, Turkey gives us the example of a Muslim democracy which, while far from perfect, is also far from Iran (at least in nature, if not geographically). 

 4.  This recent video which caused the fuss in the Middle East and Libya – which I haven’t seen, by the way – supposedly accuses Muhammed of being a pedophile.  Yet it’s common knowledge that he married his favorite wife, Aisha, when she was 6, and consummated the marriage (i.e. took her virginity) at age 9.   To call the Koran misogynist would be a massive understatement.  Even Aisha herself complained that Muslim women have a rough time.

 5.  Then there’s this business of “Heaven”.  Muhammed describes it as a pleasure palace of unbelievable wealth and beauty, and of course the 72 virgins.  This sounds awesome, fantastic!  In fact, it sounds a little TOO awesome and fantastic.  “Kill all these people.  And when you die, you have unbelievable sex, we’re talking GROUP SEX.  Orgies for eternity.”  All these instructions, mind you, supposedly coming from the same God who sent His only son down to Earth to die for our sins.   

 6.  Again, Muhammed was essentially a warlord who conquered the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime (570-632 AD).  His “revelations” from Allah were mostly self-serving and arguably calculated to attract followers to his military cause.  At the time, Christian doctrine was that “Islam” was merely a sham designed to justify Muhammed’s military campaign.  Looking at it objectively, that appears to be pretty much right on the money.  Certainly if you’re an atheist you would be more inclined to believe this as well.

 Now, I do not believe that Muslims around the world honestly believe that they are praying to Satan, the Lord of Darkness, five times a day.  Nor do I believe that they consider Muhammed a prophet of evil, much less a simple fraudulent warlord.  Moreover, the more radical and bloodthirsty elements of Islam seem to register only with the poorest, most hopeless Muslims, in the poorest, most hopeless Muslim countries.  I don’t see rich Arab sheikhs blowing themselves up.  Likewise, with the 800 lb gorilla exception of the 19 9/11 hijackers, we don’t see Muslims in the US blowing themselves up.  The Onion ran a piece about an Al Qaeda cell in the US which was postponing its jihad until after its free Netflix subscription ran out, or the season of “Heroes” ended, as they’d just bought a new plasma screen TV (FARS seems to have missed that one).  Ahmed in the US with a wife and kids and a decent job doesn’t seem particularly inclined to strap explosives to himself and blow up a bunch of infidels; he’s more inclined to enjoy the good life in the US and otherwise remain a devout Muslim, praying to Mecca, eating Halal food, and going to the mosque on Friday.   But Ahmed in Gaza, a 16 year old boy too shy to talk to girls and with no job prospects, is probably more inclined to listen to the local madrasa cleric and trade a life of poverty and involuntary celibacy for an afterlife of untold riches and nonstop orgies. 

 To finish off with C.S. Lewis again, in The Last Battle, Aslan told the children that while Tash may be Satan, the situation is a bit more complex than that.  “Good works done in the name of Tash are in fact done in my name, and evil works done in my name are in fact done for Tash.”  He recognized that many of the Calormenes (his fantasy equivalent of the Muslims) were in fact virtuous, whereas some Narnians (Europeans) were evil and sinful.   Viewed that way, we could consider Muslims who mind their own business and live peaceful, decent lives just as favorably as we do fellow Christians who behave the same way, regardless of what some angry imam in Iran – chastising such Muslims as backsliders, non-devout, complacent, corrupt, etc. for interacting favorably with non-Muslims and abandoning the cause of advancing Islam and jihad – may bark and bray about from Tehran or wherever else he might be.