Another superb piece by David Thompson on a species of moral equivalence: the equating of Christian and Islamic "fundamentalism":
"The size of an extremist ‘fringe’ and its relationship to mainstream conceptions of the faith have to be considered as they actually are, not as one might wish, or assume. When given a moment’s thought, all fundamentalisms are not in fact equivalent in their particulars, or the consequences thereof. Yet this is the default prejudice from which many commentators proceed..."My previous Bad Faith column, which dealt with cultural equivalence and the moral contortions that result, led to a barrage of email and a number of odd exchanges. Most centred on the way in which cultural equivalence can be used to present very different moral phenomena as equal in weight, generally to excuse the larger evil with a much smaller one. Recent events have given further pertinence to the arguments made in that column, and so some additional reflection seems in order.
To recap briefly: Cultural equivalence is evident when Tariq Ramadan depicted those who criticise religious intolerance and intimidation as “extremists”, thereby suggesting some parity of derangement between the people who published cartoons of Muhammad, or argued for the right to do so, and the believers who made homicidal threats and set fire to occupied buildings. This echoed Karen Armstrong’s reference to “aggressive” cartoons, published “aggressively” – again, attempting to suggest parity of motive and blame, as if one excused the other or shared the same moral gravity. Perhaps we're supposed to believe that unflattering cartoons can hurt a person in exactly the same way that, say, fists, bricks and fire do.
Cultural equivalence is also found in superficial comparisons between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims, as if no significant differences existed or should be sought. In February, Reverend Patrick Gaffney of the University of Notre Dame blamed associations of Islam with violence on a history of anti-Islamic prejudice, insisting “there are parallel behaviours in every tradition.” Gaffney maintained there was little point looking for “distinct features” within Islamic theology that might have bearing on the wave of cartoon-related violence. Attempts to deflect attention away from theological specifics are commonplace, even habitual, though not entirely convincing. One cannot simply assume that all religious traditions are exactly equal in how they deal with various slights and taboos.
One might, for instance, contrast how the Christian Messiah and the Prophet of Islam are said to have dealt with unflattering comments. To the best of my knowledge, the New Testament does not inform believers that Jesus sanctioned the assassination of his critics or mocked their dead bodies. While Muhammad did occasionally forgive those who ridiculed him, this forgiveness was by no means a typical response, particularly in his later career. Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, Kab bin al-Ashraf and Uqbah bin Abu Muayt were killed at Muhammad’s instruction in 624 AD, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan was killed the same year for writing a disrespectful verse. Given there are those who are gripped by literalist passions and view Muhammad as exemplary in all regards and for all time, perhaps these events shouldn’t be dismissed quite so lightly.
By way of further illustration, Rosie O’Donnell was happy to assert that, "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." But while red-faced evangelists may say, for instance, that gay people are wicked, damned to hellfire, etc, I don’t know of any internationally renowned Christian leaders who are calling for the imprisonment and killing of gay people. Unlike the supposedly “moderate” Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who insists that gay men and lesbians should be “killed in the worst manner possible.” Not condemned, ‘corrected’, prayed for, or pitied, or any of the usual nonsense spouted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al; but murdered - as brutally as possible.
Read it all.
"Unlike the supposedly “moderate” Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who insists that gay men and lesbians should be “killed in the worst manner possible.” Not condemned, ‘corrected’, prayed for, or pitied, or any of the usual nonsense spouted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al; but murdered - as brutally as possible. "
...Care to guess who the American public is most likely to condemn???....fools....
It all depends on which texts you see as the Word of God. If you prick a Christian fundamentalist's conscience, you'll probably see a few new homeless shelters, counseling services for pregnant teens, food pantries, and the like in your neighborhood. Indeed, it was a mane named Milne pricking the conscience of an 18th century Brit named Wilberforce that got the African slave trade abolished. But if you prick a radical Muslim's conscience, you're going to have bits of human bodies blown around your neighborhood.
Excellent post and so true, Kepha.
"Reverend Patrick Gaffney of the University of Notre Dame blamed associations of Islam with violence on a history of anti-Islamic prejudice, insisting “there are parallel behaviours in every tradition.” Gaffney maintained there was little point looking for “distinct features” within Islamic theology that might have bearing on the wave of cartoon-related violence."
-- from the article above
How does the Reverend Patrick Gaffney know that there is "little point" looking for "distinct features" within "Islamic theology that might have bearing on the wave of cartoon-related violence"? Has he looked into that "Islamic theology" to see if in fact there are some "distinct features"? If he has not looked into "Islamic theology" at all, then he has no right to tell us that there is "little point" in doing so, because he has no basis for offering that assurance.
If he has looked into "Islamic theology" and wishes to claim that there is nothing in it, nothing about the inculcated views of Infidels, nothing about the duty of Jihad, collective or at times individual, nothing about the loyalty owed the umma al-islamiyya, nothing about how Muhammad is the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana,and the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, nothing about how Muhamamd dealt with those who mocked him, nothing about how Muslims, in following Muhammad's clear example (assassination, either ordered or approved, by Muhammad himself), deal with what they regard as acts of "blasphemy."
Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, dared to exsecise, for its Danish readers, in Denmar, Danish rights guaranteed by the Danish legal and political system, rights in fact guaranteed to individuals in all the most advanced Western countries, and enshrined in such documents as the American Bill of Rights (the first ten, or more exactly, eight amendments). For this act of daring to exercise those rights, the newspaper's editors were threatened with death, Danes everywhere in the Muslim lands were threatened with death, eocnomic boycotts were declared, ambassadors recalled, and imams in Denmark (not "Danish imams" which would be a different thing), went on tours to whip up easily whipped-up hysteria, in the Middle East, against all Danes everywhere.
Reverend Patrick Gaffney needs to study Islam. Not Islam as he would have it be. Islam as it is, and Islam, as acted upon by Muslims, over the past 1350 years, in the years of Jihad-conquest, and then in the centuries of subsequent subjugation, leading in many cases to the almost complete disappearance of non-Muslims, Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians, in the lands where they were once not only the majority but made up the entire populations, and helped to wipe Buddhism out in India, and to destroy 60-70 million Hindus, and thousands of temple complexes, and to forcibly convert other tens of millions of Hindus to Islam -- their descendants are the Muslims of Paksitan, India, and Bangladesh whom we see today, and who are determinedly uninterested in the conditions that caused their Hindu ancestors to convert.
Reverend Patrick Gaffney is exploiting his clerical collar to be one more recruit in the army of apologists for Islam. Even though his evident motive is not cupidity -- that of so many former ambassadors, journalists, empire-building academics (Esposito with his "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding"), businessmen eager for Saudi contracts, even ex-C.I.A. agents (see the last three decades in the life of Raymond Close, formerly C.I.A. station chief in Riyadh, from 1970-1977).
He shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Collar or no collar, he should not be allowed to be a front man or apologist for things that must be studied, and their full, menacing nature understood.
Father Coughlin didn't get away with it, not after Pearl Harbor. We had our Pearl Harbor, or rather the Infidels everywhere have had a rolling series of Pearl Harbors, but not enough Infidels have had the wit to properly identify them as such. But they are there. And Father Gaffney, like Father Coughlin, will ultimately have to stop his sweetly sinister apologetics.
Mr. Thompson's outstanding articles clearly illustrate the utter lack of understanding of reality moral relativists have. They insist that since Western civilization has had it's periods of intolerance, hate and religious persecution, it has no right to condemn or even point out when other cultures engage in similar or worst activities. They also ignore the fact that Western civilization and Christianity in particular have come a long way since the days of the Crusades and the Inquisition and repudiated that kind of behaviour.
What utter nonsense. It's a like saying adults have no right to correct unruly children simply because they were or may have been unruly children themselves. What makes it even worst is that these moral relativists seem to insist we also have no right to defend ourselves either from those who hate us and wish to enslave, convert and / or otherwise subjugate us to their beliefs.
Sadly, there are way to many people in the West who think that way.
Hugh writes of Reverend Gaffney's gaffe:
"Even though his evident motive is not cupidity..."
I don't think the Reverend has any motive; he's simply breathing in, and breathing out, the atmosphere of political correctness that pervades reality outside the artificial environments of Jihad Watch and a still pitifully few other venues.
Christians and Muslims: Apples and Oranges
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/08/christians-and-muslims-apples-and.html
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k47/linkhero55/not_this_shit_again.jpg
Sayyid Qutb
As one who has followed the blog world on its views of Sayyid Qutb, your discussion of relative moralism is interesting. You may be interested in visiting and contributing to a blog that explores the totality of Qutb and Islam in the form of considered essays.
http://anti-sayyid-qutb.blogspot.com/
Enjoy
Dave
Dave: I went to your blog "Anti Seyyid Qutb". it is clear you have done a lot of thinking about various issues.
However, I strongly disagree that revealed religion has no place in politics. Our North Atlantic ideal of limited government is the product of Reformed Protestantism's (Calvinism's) fear of unchecked fallen human nature having too much power--hence the opposition to royal absolutism found in every Reformed political theorist of 16th and 17th century Europe. Where we Americans would be without John Witherspoon and other members of the "Black Legion" (mostly Congregationalist and Presbyterian clergy who supported the colonial cause) is anyone's guess.
Consider as well the man for whom you were named. Not only was he anointed by the prophet Samuel, but, in II Samuel 5, he makes a covenant with the elders of Israel before he can rule. This, coupled with instructions concerning the submission of the king to Torah (Deuteronomy 17) are among the reasons why a long succession of Christian political theorists posited the submission of the rule to law--and the consent of either the people and/or their representatives.
It is true that Islam mourns the loss of a "rightly guided" Caliphate. It is also true that Islam's talent has been for one-man rule. But Islam is not the only Theistic or Abrahamic religion out there--and it makes a very BIG difference which sacred texts people take as fundamental.