|
Sunday, February 19, 2006But what is truth?When I walk down the street and see an attractive woman, I do not rip out my eyes, lest an impure thought occur. When Jimmy Swaggart tearfully confessed his sins, he did not castrate himself after. When Jewish children go a little crazy, the likelihood of their being stoned is exceptionally small. It was once observed (maybe by Spinoza?) that though we claim to be believers, we are not. We do not live our lives exactly according to faith. Rather, the most devout - in theory - turn around and find ways to live life in relative harmony with a world that does not believe as they do. In so doing, we choose, it would seem, eternal damnation and the loss of thousands, millions, of fellow souls, in an effort to fit in. Yet the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament call upon us to stone intemperate youth. And in the New Testament, Christ Himself says "If thine eye offend thee..." What's up? In a nutshell, I think there is something in the Old and New Testaments, an element of humor and understanding, that allows us to find hyperbole and appreciate the truth it exposes, or to see a rule for the survival of an exceptional tribe whose relevance was then. Certainly, it is possible to see the Epistles as letters to particular churches at particular times - they were just that. In the Judeo-Christian world - in the West - we have a place for those whose belief in the absolute literalness of the Bible goes from theory to full-time practice: the asylum and the prison, depending on the damage done. In the Islamic world - they think - they have a place for those whose belief in the absolute literalness of the Koran goes from theory to full-time practice: leadership. But this is poppycock, poppycock of the same variety that made Louis IX of France a saint and Hitler the father over his people. The problem with Islam, in this moment, is not Islam, per se, but that so many of its followers live in backward societies, tribal nations that can pull a trigger but could never on their own devise a gun. What happened in Nigeria is the latest outrage from what is ostensibly the religion of peace. But Islam does not mean "peace," it means "submission." In theory, Islam represents submission to the will of God. In practice, it is submission to those totalitarians who claim its mantle. In theory, Christianity calls for the giving of one's life to God's purpose. In practice, it was - and in some cases remains - the giving of one's life to the purposes of another mortal who purports to speak for God. What we see in the cartoon wars, in the massacre in Nigeria, in the suicide bombings all over the place, is not submission to the will of Allah, the one true God. Rather, it is submission to a vision of the Nietzchean will-to-power in which powerless, backward rubes for one brief moment get to be God-on-earth, settling matters of truth and justice and delivering their own law. Our word for this is blasphemy. But if we all on passing find the Maker we conceived of as creating our world, a fair share of Muslims will not be getting their 72 virgins, as promised, but hellfire for the crime of wearing Allah's mantle. Mohammed, some historical traditions indicate, had a much better sense of humor about himself than many of his followers. Let's hope they catch up. In the meantime, though, it is right that the West be on the offensive. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we are making it clear that those who claim to be on the side of Allah are, mysteriously, on the losing side. Yes they've got their bodycounts, but people keep eating and sleeping and living and voting and acting as though there's a higher purpose than detonating the enemy invaders. 99%+ of Iraqis have demonstrated by their failure to take up arms against us that either they are not true Muslims fighting for Allah or that there is more than one understanding of what Allah wants and how to honor that as a Muslim. As I say, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Iraq reject the views of AQ, of the insurgents, of the whole crowd that say this is part of the ultimate battle. Not according to polls, not according to surveys, but according to their very actions, actions which tell us that they are not convinced that going out and dying and collecting their 72 virgins is where it's at. In Nigeria, and in the cartoon wars, too, there is a suspicious failure to actually risk or give over one's life for these beliefs. When the shops are closed and you've got some free time, you might go to a protest or massacre a few Christians. But if the rent's due, a lot of Muslims who believe in the omnipotence of Allah become awfully worried about taking care of themselves rather than doing what Allah wants with the knowledge He'll take care of them. Or so it would seem. In Malcom Gladwell's Blink, he talks about speed-dating and how its results were analyzed by an economist and - if I recall correctly - a psychologist. The subjects were given questionnaires about what they looked for in a person. They got the same questionnaire after meeting someone they liked. Asked about the discrepancy, the economist sagely noted that if you truly want to know where people stand you have to look at what they do, not what they say. To listen to the loudest voices speaking for Islam, you'd think we were in deep doodoo. But while attitudes are not unimportant, in the end, it is actions that count. And in the end, the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject the totalitarian visions of the Islamonutters. When passions are high and risks are minimal, the hooligans come out in force. But when fire is returned - as we saw even in France, ultimately - conviction turns quickly to cowardice or moderation - interpret it as you wish. Which makes the answer to the Nigeria massacre, events in Iraq, etc. very obvious in theory, if tricky in practice: Work to create circumstances where Muslims must choose, where they cannot both live out normal lives and act out extreme views. The overwhelming majority, like the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews, will find their way to an expression and understanding of faith that keeps bloodshed at a minimum. That starts, unfortunately, with forcing the most fervent into confrontations - necessarily violent - in which they must choose between their lives in this world and their peculiar convictions about what the next one holds. Which is why we're right to act in Afghanistan and Iraq. And why this will be won, but a long ways down the road. 
posted by gbarto at 12:23 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
