Muslim Anguish And Western Hypocrisy

[Deen]

... <b>The ground will continue to erode beneath the feet of </b>


moderate Muslims, the constituency upon whom the White House placed its best


hopes.


Front Page


Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy


By Spengler


Muslims who have made their life in Western countries while adhering to


Islam face a frightful dilemma. After the November 2 murder of Dutch


filmmaker Theo van Gogh (The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16), European


authorities have demanded that resident Muslims repudiate violence. Many


mainstream Muslim leaders, though, cannot bring themselves to denounce the


murderer of van Gogh, whose film Submission showed Koranic verses


superimposed on the naked skin of Muslim women.


Smugness oozes from European politicians who demand that Muslims repudiate


violence as a precondition for residence in the West. To repudiate the death


sentence for blasphemy would be the same as abandoning the Islamic order in


traditional society in favor of a Western-style religion of personal


conscience. The West spent centuries of time and rivers of blood to make


such a transition, and carried it off badly. Whether Islam can do so at all


remains doubtful.


As a matter of record, most European Muslim organizations declined to


disavow the murder of van Gogh. During a November 19 radio interview, for


example, Zahid Mukhtar, head of the Islamic Council of Norway, refused to


condemn van Gogh's murder, creating a scandal out of proportion to Norway's


small Muslim population. A Moroccan-born member of the Belgian Senate,


Mimount Bousakla, received death threats after remonstrating with the


umbrella organization of Belgian Muslims for its refusal to denounce the van


Gogh murder. She since has gone into hiding.


In Germany, most of the country's Muslim groups refused to take part in this


past Sunday's Muslim demonstration in Cologne against terrorism and


violence. In fact, the Turkish government organized the 20,000-person


demonstration without support from local Muslim organizations. Its sole


sponsor was DITIB, the Turkish government's Muslim association headed by an


appointee from Ankara. DITIB "already had tried in vain to organize a common


declaration by all German Muslims against Islamist terrorism", noted Der


Spiegel Online on November 19.


Muslim refusal to tolerate blasphemy has nothing to do with rage or


recalcitrance. It is a theological necessity. Executions for blasphemy would


attract no attention in Iran or Saudi Arabia. The trouble is that the


population of Islamic countries has spilled over en masse into the West.


Imams in Europe cannot pronounce differently on such matters than they would


in their home countries, and blasphemy cannot be tolerated by traditional


society.


"As for heretics, their sin deserves banishment, not only ... by


excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith,


whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which


supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily


condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may


heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated,


but also justly be put to death." Those are the words of the 13th-century


Catholic authority St Thomas Aquinas, the most influential of all Catholic


thinkers, presented by Catholic writers from Lord Acton to Jacques Maritain


as the antecedent of European democracy.


An apologist for St Thomas, Michael Novak of the American Enterprise


Institute, excused the hard line against heresy on the grounds that tough


times required it:


Thirteenth-century societies were highly fragile. Beyond ties of kinship,


many citizens experienced little to bind them to others. Most were subjects


of a few - and one ruling aristocrat was often overturned by another ...


geographical isolation was often intense, and shifting patterns of warfare,


baronial allegiance, and foreign occupation awakened acute local insecurity.


Under political anarchy, the common people and the poor suffered much. Under


all these uncertainties, the chief consensual bond among people was Catholic


faith and Catholic ritual. Virtually all unifying conceptions of


relationship and social weight, meaning and order, came from that faith. [1]


St Thomas did not merely support a death sentence for individual heretics,


but weighed in vigorously on behalf of the Crusade against the Albigensians,


which laid waste to most of Provence. Does Novak believe that today's Muslim


societies are any less fragile? If he believes that 13th-century conditions


justified the death penalty for heretics in Christian Europe, why should


Muslims not apply the same logic to their own societies?


In fact, the terrestrial power of the Church, along with its authority to


burn heretics, was pried out of her cold, dead fingers. It took the


frightful 30 Years' War to break the political power of the Church in


Europe, and the reunification of Italy to reduce the Vatican to its present


postage-stamp dimensions. The Church in the person of pope Pius IX responded


by excommunicating the entire government of Count Cavour.


Not until the Second Vatican Council of 1965 did the Church reconcile itself


to the role of a religion of conscience without temporal power. But the


disintegration of European Catholic life coincides with Vatican II. Church


attendance in most European countries has fallen to single-digit


percentages, and the lowest fertility rates are found in Spain and Italy,


formerly among the most Catholic. It is unclear whether Catholicism will


survive the transition to religion of individual conscience from temporal


power, and the prognosis is bleak. Even Michael Novak has his doubts:


What is the proper relation of Christian faith to the open society? A


relation that entails the persecution of heretics is clearly repugnant to


Christian faith. The special circumstances of the 13th century remain a


vivid case study in what not to do. But if the profession of Christian faith


is not to be constitutionally required, as certainly it should not be, just


how can Christian faith escape from being merely privatized and relativized?


And how can open societies themselves be saved from giving a posthumous


victory to such relativists as Hitler and Mussolini, who began by stating


that nothing in politics is right or wrong, that only power matters?


Only in one form does Christianity thrive without the policeman's baton in


the back of the shepherd's rod, and that is in its American evangelical


expression. The great monuments of European Catholicism lie exposed like the


bones of extinct mammoths, and in Latin America, the mice of American-style


Protestant denominations are eating the eggs of the Catholic dinosaurs.


Judaism suffered its own transition from a state religion to a private


religion of conscience, bloodily and against its will. The best account


comes from Rabbi Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton, an Episcopal priest.


Between the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 and the


establishment of Christianity as Rome's state religion in the 4th century


under the Emperor Constantine, the two religions traded places. Judaism


ceased to function as the state religion of Israel, and the legal philosophy


preserved in the Mishnah gave way to the theology of the Rabbinical writings


of the Talmud. The private and communal character of early Christianity gave


way to the public and political state religion of Constantine. [2]


The sorry state of today's Judaism should provide moderate Muslims poor


cause for optimism. Not much middle ground separates the Jewish orthodox,


who attempt to live by the medieval interpretation of Jewish scriptures, and


secular Jews, who find themselves everywhere at the cutting-edge of social


experimentation.


With its 139 major denominations, America's protean form of Christianity


might seem least likely to succeed. In reality, its superficial weakness


reveals underlying strength, for American Christians are immune to the


blandishments of mere "Christendom" (Soren Kierkegaard's dismissive term for


social habit), and better prepared to take the leap of faith. American


Christianity is by its nature born-again, evangelical, disruptive, an


unending moment of self-conversion.


Jews and Christians had centuries to accomplish the transition from public


and political religion to private and communal religion, whereas


circumstances press moderate Muslims to do this on the spot. The two older


religions did so under duress, chaotically, and with limited success.


Whether Islam can make such a transition at all remains doubtful. There is


an element of truth in Michael Novak's attempt to portray St Thomas Aquinas


as a democrat. Human freedom flows from the Judeo-Christian concept of


divine love, as Aquinas wrote:


Divine providence extends to all things. Yet a special rule applies where


intelligent creatures are involved. For they excel all others in the


perfection of their nature and the dignity of their end; they are masters of


their activity and act freely, while others are more acted on than acting.


They react to their destiny by their own proper activity, that is by knowing


and loving God, whereas other creatures show only some traces of this


likeness ... To begin with, rational creatures are governed for their own


benefit, whereas other creatures are governed for the sake of men. Men are


principals, not merely instruments. [3]


No such concept of divine love and the ensuing sovereignty of the individual


can be found in Islam. Love constrains the Judeo-Christian God, but not


Allah. "The God of Mohammed," wrote Franz Rosenzweig, "is a creator who well


might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental


potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not


by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act


arbitrarily" (see Oil on the flames of civilizational war, Dec 2, 2003).


It is not clear where the present crisis will lead. A few European


politicians are demanding harsh measures to suppress Islamist radicalism.


The German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg's cultural minister, Annette Schavan,


proposes that a law to compel Muslim clergy to preach exclusively in German,


while the interior minister of Brandenburg, Joerg Schoenbohm, wants to take


away the citizenship of "hate preachers".


On the other hand, the Netherlands' justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, has


proposed to enforce a 1932 law against blasphemy to prevent future insults


to Islam. The proposal is astounding, for no Christian country has penalized


blasphemy of the most extreme variety in two generations. Would the


anti-blasphemy rule apply to scholarly demonstrations that alternative


variants exist of the Koran, or to linguistic arguments that the Koran has


been mistranslated (eg, Professor Christoph Luxenberg's claim that the


"seventy-two virgins" awaiting martyrs in Paradise really are white


raisins)?


The tragedy will continue to unfold, and at a faster pace. Jews and


Christians have learned to accept humiliation. God's love for the individual


soul remains valid despite worldly reverses, and failure in the temporal


realm provides cause for self-evaluation. Humiliation is intolerable to


Islam; Allah sets the spin of every electron around every nucleus by a


discrete act of will, and reverses in the temporal world challenge Islam's


promise of success.


The logic of events offers nothing to Muslims but humiliation. The


re-elected administration of US President George W Bush has put into action


a two-pronged attack, destroying the Sunni resistance in Fallujah and


neighboring cities, while holding a gun to the head of Iran in order to


forestall the emergence of a greater Shi'ite opposition, just as I predicted


(Bush, Marshal Foch, and Iran, Sept 21). Not a whimper of protest arose from


the Europeans, whose undivided attention was focused on the van Gogh affair


and its implications. The ground will continue to erode beneath the feet of


moderate Muslims, the constituency upon whom the White House placed its best


hopes.