By Jonah Goldberg, December 4, 2002
If every German I meet or see is a Nazi, it’s reasonable for me to say all
Germans are Nazis. It may not be true, of course, but having no evidence
indicating otherwise it’s certainly understandable that I would draw that
conclusion. If, however, I constantly hear Germans condemn Nazism and
anything which remotely resembles Nazism, if I see them repudiating German
Nazis, and working to repair the damage done by German Nazis, it would be
outrageously unfair and malicious for me to say all Germans are Nazis.
Now, under both hypothetical circumstances, the actual number of
Germans
who are Nazis can remain the same. The only difference is what the
non-Nazi Germans do. As the saying goes, all that evil needs to triumph is
for good men to do nothing.
This goes for public relations too.
But first, let’s bring things up to date. Right now there’s an interesting
debate going on, mostly on the right – which makes sense as that is where
most interesting debates take place these days (think about it). It’s
basically about the nature of Islam and how the Bush administration deals
with the Muslim world.
On the one extreme are folks like Pat Robertson and
Jerry Falwell, who say Islam is soaked-to-the-bone violent and, according
to some, just plain “evil.”
On the other side, I suppose, are folks like
David Forte, a law professor and reported adviser to the White House who,
according to critics, believes religiosity is more important than the
content of a religion. (He’s written for NRO defending this view)
I’m sure there are people in the White House who truly believe “Islam means peace,”
but – with the exception of George W. Bush – their names elude me.
In the middle of these two extremes – Islam is bad versus Islam is
wonderful – are lots of pragmatists and agnostics of various flavors.
Indeed, most of the folks who reject the “Islam means peace” bumper
sticker, including Robertson himself, concede that as a matter of
geopolitics President Bush has no choice but to make nice on the Islamic
world.
Asked by George Stephanopoulos whether Bush is being politically
correct, Robertson replied “No, he’s not being politically correct. He is
waging a war, and he’s waging a war against terrorism and he doesn’t want
to take on the whole Arab world. He doesn’t want this to be a
Muslim-Christian fight or a Muslim-America fight.”
And this is why Bush has gone out of his way to either condemn or distance
himself from comments by Robertson, Falwell, and others.
Now – just to be clear – on the substance, I guess I’m closer to the
Islam-is-a-violent-religion party. I think Falwell was silly to call
Mohammed a “terrorist” because the word as we know it simply cannot be
applied with any validity to conquering Arab generals of the 7th century.
I see no reason not to think of Mohammed as an enlightened ruler as far as
things went back in those days and in that place. But let’s also face
facts: Mohammed was a general, and his generations of successors and
disciples were conquerors.
There is just too much in Islam about the
importance of grabbing and holding territory to ignore.
Jesus was a nonviolent martyr who argued for rendering unto Caesar what was his.
Mohammed was Caesar. The seed of the notion of a civil society outside the
scope of religious authority was planted by Jesus in Jewish soil; it was
subsequently nurtured, with much bloodshed, over two millennia until today
where the separation of Church and State is a bedrock of Western
Civilization. This separation of the City of God and the City of Man, to
use Saint Augustine’s formulation, is still quite alien to Islamic society.
Furthermore, the first few generations of Christianity were marked by
suffering and oppression. The first few generations of Islam were marked
by conquering.
In its harshness, I suppose you could say Islam resembles
pre-Christian Judaism in some ways. Jews, too, believe in the importance
of geography and the use of the sword to protect it. Of course, they
believe in holding onto only one narrow strip of it. (Prediction: Jewish
militants will never claim, say, Cleveland as rightfully theirs.)
And, it should be said, many Jews do not see modern Israel as the fulfillment of
any Biblical or religious imperative – lots and lots of Zionists are very
secular. And, it should be noted, Jews haven’t spent most of the last two
millennia ruling empires and conquering land so much as being brutalized,
oppressed, or – at best – tenuously tolerated.
Anyway, Muslims tend to believe that once a strip of dirt becomes Muslim
it’s gotta stay Muslim for ever and ever. And if a burg’s population
becomes majority Muslim, it must be ruled by Muslims (see Kashmir for
details). This is one of the primary understandings, historically and
religiously speaking, of “jihad.”
“Until fairly recent times,” writes
Bernard Lewis, “ was usually, though not universally, understood in
a military sense. It was a Muslim duty – collective in attack, individual
in defense – to fight in the war against the unbelievers. In principle,
this war was to continue until all mankind either embraced Islam or
submitted to the authority of the Muslim state.”
According to Islamic tradition, the world is divided into the House of War
and the House of Islam – and once real estate is brought into the House of
Islam, there’s no getting out. And, eventually, the House of War will be
brought into the House of Islam too.
That’s why Osama bin Laden says that
he won’t rest until he gets most of Spain back. And this is partly, though
not entirely, why – as Samuel Huntington noted – “the borders of Islam are bloody.”
IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER
But now that I’ve given you some indication of where I come down on the
question “Is Islam a religion of peace?” let me say none of this matters.
Look: I take law-abiding, tolerant, and peaceful Muslims at their word
when they say to me that they believe Islam means peace. Further, I take
them at their word that they live by that interpretation.
But the fact
remains that other Muslims surely believe that Islam means death. Death to
Christians, Jews, and Hindus; death to unbelievers, heretics, blasphemers,
adulterers, and plenty of other categories of human being.
And guess what, it’s those Muslims who are killing us.
And guess what else? Those other, peace-loving, Muslims aren’t doing enough about it.
I’ve written before that in the realm of public policy, theology doesn’t
matter nearly as much as morality and behavior. You can believe that
murder is wrong because it depletes the ozone layer for all we care – so
long as you believe murder is wrong. The differences between, say, Greek
Orthodox Christians and Quakers are fascinating, rich, storied, and
significant. But in the public square they do not matter one bit so long
as Greek Orthodox Christians and Quakers alike abide by the law and our
common sense of morality.
If one group wants to burn incense and the other wants to make
oatmeal, nobody cares. So long as each group leaves the other alone.
So, to a certain extent, I couldn’t care less if Islam is, on paper,
factually, textually, objectively, and in all other academic senses a
religion of war and bigotry – so long as actual Muslims are decent and
upstanding people.
And, similarly, the fact that Christianity is a
religion of love and compassion would be equally meaningless if Christians
spent their days poking me with red-hot metal thingies – out of love and
compassion no doubt – in order to get me to convert.
Sure, I might take note of Christian hypocrisy while I waited for
Torquemada to bust out his scrotal tongs, but, truth be told, scoring debating
points wouldn’t be at the forefront of my agenda.
Which brings me back to the Nazis and Germans. Human beings draw
conclusions from what they see. All around the world, Muslims are
declaring, in the name of Islam, that they are at war with the West. More
important, all around the world self-declared Muslims are actually waging
war on the West. They may be a tiny minority of the global Muslim
community. I have no doubt that’s true.
But if the decent and peace-loving Muslims of the world sit on their hands
and do nothing, you can hardly fault many in the West who draw the conclusion
that Islam is anything but peaceful.
Why is it so hard to find, for example, a Muslim “leader” to
condemn the death sentence against the journalist who wrote about
Mohammed and the Miss World pageant – without some moral-equivalence
weasel words about how she should have known better?
Closer to home, consider our friends at CAIR, the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (which has orchestrated endless spam campaigns
against this publication). CAIR had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into the business of denouncing terrorists. They do it now from time to
time, but it sure doesn’t sound like their heart is in it.
Scroll through
these “News Releases” from CAIR over the last year or so. You’ll find a
couple of denunciations of terrorists (followed by demands that Jews do
the same to Israel, in a cute game of moral equivalence). But you will
find these are the needles in the giant haystacks of whines and complaints
about how unfair America is to Muslims.
The folks at CAIR, and other
Muslim activists, are much, much more concerned, it seems, about the U.S.
government or American pundits saying vaguely un-nice things about Muslims
than they are about the fact that Muslims around the world are insulting
their faith through mass murder in Mohammed’s name.
When the FBI recently came out with its numbers on hate crimes against
Muslims in America, American Islamic activists like Ibrahim Hooper were
all over the airwaves and newspapers outrageously comparing American
Muslims to Jews in Weimar Germany. But you can hear crickets chirp or, at
best, you can read torpid boilerplate, when it comes time to denounce
Muslim atrocities.
By the way, I’m outraged by the Germany comparison not as a Jew but as an
American. There isn’t a scintilla of validity to the insinuation that
America has been anything but the antithesis of what Hooper and
self-pitying whiners claim. According to the very FBI statistics they
cite, twice as many Jews as Muslims were the victims of hate crimes in the
United States since 19 Muslim fanatics murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
And, by the way, if a Jew used those numbers in order to justify saying
America feels like Weimar Germany I would call him an idiot who should be
ashamed of himself for slandering America (and demeaning the Holocaust as well).
The fact is that, while even one crime is too many, the post-9/11
“backlash” against Muslims in America has been astoundingly mild by
historical standards. Compared to what happened to German-Americans during
WWI or Japanese-Americans in WWII it barely even warrants an asterisk in
the history books.
Oh, and speaking of denouncing fellow Jews, I’ve done it plenty of times.
For example, when Irv Rubin of the JDL was arrested for plotting a
terrorist attack I denounced him in the strongest possible terms, as did
pretty much every prominent Jewish figure in America within 48 hours. (See
Jeff Jacoby’s excellent column from December 20, 2001. You need to scroll down.)
I bring this up not to brag about my consistency but to make the point
that it’s important not to let others speak in your name if you disagree
with what they’re saying. Especially when they’re saying it with bombs and guns.
I will have a lot more sympathy for the complaints of Muslim
activists once they put even a fraction of the energy they dedicate to
portraying themselves as victims of bigoted America – or Europe – toward
policing and condemning their own co-religionists. If they’re afraid for
their personal safety or even their lives – not an unreasonable fear –
that’s no excuse.
Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest may
constitute hijackers in the cockpit of a peaceful religion, but they will
define Islam if the folks in the main cabin don’t fight the hijackers.
That’s what happened with Nazis in Germany, and that’s what will happen
with militant Islam if non-militant Islam continues to insist that its
biggest enemies are the open and tolerant nations of the West that gave
them the opportunity to live decent lives in freedom.
If they persist in that complaint, nobody will be able to justly blame average
Americans for scoffing at the suggestion that Islam means peace.
