| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A few weeks ago, National Review's Rich Lowry wrote this:
But what deserves preserving from the original Bush approach? First, the contention that Islam is a religion of peace. Even if this seems a polite fiction, it is an important one. Influential Muslims believe it to be true, and it is crucial that they prevail in the Muslim struggle for self-definition. We should want to do all we reasonably can to create the conditions in which the positive elements within Islam flower.
I didn't have the chance to comment on this at the time, but I've decided to do so now not only because this kind of assessment is taken seriously by so many, but because it has consequences for public policy that could be quite serious -- not to say catastrophic.
"We should want to do all we reasonably can to create the conditions in which the positive elements within Islam flower." Without any doubt this is so. But does this really require affirming that Islam is a religion of peace even if we know that this is a "polite fiction"? Well, if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride, but I generally don't put much stock into the idea that if we pretend very hard, fiction will become reality. One must ask of Lowry's "influential Muslims" who believe that Islam is a religion of peace what exactly they mean by this phrase, and how they intend to convince Muslims of other perspectives of the correctness of their own position -- which, especially since it is a "polite fiction," is not well grounded in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
One must also come to grips with the fact that there is quite a bit of deception, distortion, and half-truth out there about this topic. And that deception, distortion, and half-truth is influential. But when shallow and incomplete presentations purport to establish that Islam is a religion of peace, non-Muslims may be convinced, but those Muslims who are waging jihad in the name of Islam will see the weakness of the arguments and not be convinced to lay down their arms. The non-Muslims who are convinced, meanwhile, will perhaps overestimate the chances for Islamic reform -- and that in turn will lead to any number of misconceived policies and initiatives.
What brought all this on this morning was a post at The Anchoress blog. It showed up in my Referrers List since someone there posted a link to this site. I had not seen The Anchoress site before; it seems to be a Catholic religious blog, and I only cite it because it is a good example of how an intelligent person of good will can be taken in by a misleading and incomplete presentation of the Islamic data.
The Anchoress initiated a correspondence with a Muslim named Ali, asking him if Muslims, like Christians, were taught to turn the other cheek; she recounts the exchange in a post entitled "Muhammed turned the other cheek?" The whole thing is worth reading, but Ali makes several assertions that are particularly worth noting:
There certainly is a turn the other cheek component to Islam. You must know that Islam has grown up in close proximity with Christianity. In fact, one of the Prophet’s brother in laws was a Christian (and his first wife a Jew).
Immediately the alarm bells started to go off for me. Khadija, Muhammad's first wife, was probably not a Jew. Some Islamic traditions imply that her uncle was Jewish, but others clearly state that she was daughter of Khuwaylid ibn Asad ibn Abdul-`Uzza ibn Qusayy, who was a member of an Arab tribe, the Banu Asad. In fact, she and Muhammad were distant relatives.
Also, the "turn the other cheek component" in Islam, insofar as it exists at all, must contend against passages of the Qur'an such as 9:13: "Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first?" In other words, these people hurt you; will you not now hurt them? That is just the opposite of the idea of turning the other cheek. If Ali quoted such verses and attempted to explain them in a way that acknowledged their plain meaning but offered a viable alternative to the literal understanding of them, he would inspire more confidence in the trustworthiness and comprehensiveness of his presentation.
Ali continues:
When Muhammad first accepted his prophethood, he was scared of preaching to the Meccans. Some were family. Some thought he was crazy. So he went to the nearby city of Taif, which was another pagan stronghold. The place was where pilgrims of the goddess Al-Lat (The Goddess), used to come. In Taif he was immediately mocked and reviled, but he persisted. Anyway, the residents began to pelt him with stones and threw him out. They threw so many stones at him that blood ran into his shoes and pooled. As Muhammad was leaving Taif, the angel Gabriel came to him and asked: Messenger of God, if you wish I will hurl the mountains upon these people. Muhammad, instead, prayed for the people and declined Gabriel’s offer.
This did not, however, keep Muhammad from besieging Ta'if, although he did not conquer it That in turn suggests that Muhammad's gentle response to his being stoned by the inhabitants of the city was tactical rather than principled; in other words, he didn't retaliate at the time because he lacked the means to do so, but this wasn't because he believed in turning the other cheek. He did try to conquer the city when he could.
Ali also says:
Similarly, on another occassion, there was a Jewish neighbor of his who often reviled him. He used to stand in his window as Muhammad passed by and yell insults. One day Muhammad noted that the insults had stopped. After some days passed Muhammad realized that something was wrong and he went to find out if something was amiss. He discovered that the man was on his death-bed. Muhammad stayed with him until he passed away.
Once again, this is not a consistent pattern of behavior for Muhammad. Take, for example, his call to heaven for revenge when his enemies abuse him:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:Once the Prophet was offering prayers at the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl was sitting with some of his companions. One of them said to the others, "Who amongst you will bring the abdominal contents (intestines, etc.) of a camel of Bani so and so and put it on the back of Muhammad, when he prostrates?" The most unfortunate of them got up and brought it. He waited till the Prophet prostrated and then placed it on his back between his shoulders. I was watching but could not do any thing. I wish I had some people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and falling on one another. Allah's Apostle was in prostration and he did not lift his head up till Fatima (Prophet's daughter) came and threw that (camel's abdominal contents) away from his back. He raised his head and said thrice, "O Allah! Punish Quraish." So it was hard for Abu Jahl and his companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city (Mecca). The Prophet said, "O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin Al Mu'it (and he mentioned the seventh whose name I cannot recall). By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those persons who were counted by Allah's Apostle in the Qalib (one of the wells) of Badr. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, book 4, no. 241)
Muhammad was also in no mood to turn the other cheek when he ordered the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, two poets who had made fun of him in their verses.
When Ali asserts that modern-day jihads are illegitimate, he is hardly more reliable:
In short, Muslims have forgotten that war (jihad) is the exclusive possession of the state. This is why OBL, despite his pietist stance, is actually (under classical islamic law), a heretic.
This completely ignores the fact that Osama has cast all his actions as defenses of the Muslim community worldwide, and that "classical Islamic law" stipulates that jihad is fard ayn, or mandatory for all Muslims, when a Muslim land is attacked. Ali may be correct that offensive jihad cannot be waged except by the caliph (which is one reason why the mujahedin are so avid to restore the caliphate), but when virtually any and every violent action by Muslims can be and is presented as defensive, this is rendered irrelevant.
Ali is no more accurate about the touchy subject of the age of Aisha, Muhammad's last and youngest bride:
One thing if you don’t mind adding: people often attack Muhammad’s personal life by citing to the fact that he allegedly married a six (or 9) year old. In fact, Muslims perpetuate this idea as well!Fact is, this is empirically incorrect. Some scholars have done research, and reached the conclusion that she was, at worst, 16.
Ali doesn't explain why the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable, Sahih Bukhari, affirms in no less than five places that Aisha was six when Muhammad took her and nine when he consummated the marriage (vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 234; vol. 5 bk. 58 no. 236; vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 64; vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 65; and vol. 7 bk. 62 no. 88). It is also in Sunan Abu Dawud (bk. 41 no. 4915), another of the Sahih Sittah, the six hadith collections Muslims accept as most reliable. Ali's arguments for Aisha being older may be perfectly sound, but they are based on traditions that are later and less reliable than the ones cited here. He should at least explain why that is so if his intention is truly to reform Islam by convincing Muslims that they should not imitate the Prophet in his taking of a child bride or in other matters as well.
Or is his intention merely to help lull non-Muslims into complacency?
I am all for supporting Muslim reformers. But I don't believe that people who ignore or brush aside material that obviously refutes their views are worth trusting as reformers. Because the mujahedin will not ignore or brush aside the material that these pseudo-reformers are busy sweeping under the rug.
Ali, of course, is just an example of a larger tendency. But his arguments are no weaker than those of more prominent pseudo-reformers. There is still no large-scale or comprehensive effort within the Muslim community worldwide to refute the mujahedin's exegesis of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Unless or until there is, it would be foolhardy to depend on the prospects of reformers for success.
If wishes were horses, beggars and Rich Lowry would ride, but I think it is very unwise to place our hopes, much less to base public policy, on such an obviously weak reed.
Posted by Robert at April 11, 2006 6:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Even if this seems a polite fiction, it is an important one.
Where did Rich go to college. Harvard? Yale? Standford? Reason I ask is, nobody can get this stupid without persistent paroxyms of self-congratulation.
MO RICH LOWRYS MO DANIEL PIPES MO TIM RUSSERTS MO MICHAEL SAVAGES MO
At its best, Islam can be a beautiful religion.
--- Michael Savage, from hiding during a drunken appearance on his own radio show
This important fiction, was that before or after the rape and sex slavery, robbery, and torture? Before or after french kissing a 6-year old girl in the bed.
Explain to me this slippery slab greasy, bloody, fetid piece of most crapulous offal called the Koran, please.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 11, 2006 7:32 AM
Did you place this answer on the Anchoress' weblog? Or a link? She is widely respected among online, orthodox Catholics - a constituency whose support we have to win (I speak as one of them). Unfortunately, concerned as they are with the culture wars and Christophobia, many of them are apt to regard Muslims as possible allies rather than enemies, and must be shown that the moral world of Islam is more distant from that of Christianity than even that of the average American university professor. (In so far, of course, as they differ. There is a reason why the PC crowd and Islam find each other's company so agreeable.) And a detailed and reasoned response such as this will at least open a few eyes.
Posted by: Paolo at April 11, 2006 8:07 AM
Robert
Muhammad infuriated the Jews of his day when he quoted "Abraham did not take Isaac to Mount Moriah as an offering , he tooh Ishmael to the Black stone of Mecca" they laughed at him for this but when he made it plain that he was demanding they accept him as the "Messiah", they gave him short shrift, for which he tried to expunge their memory by accusations of treason, he then slaughtered them all, lest a proper record of the event be kept of his humiliation.
Muslims have tried to cherry pick whole sections of Jewish and Christain scripture ever since.
Turning the other cheek, thats rich, the massacre at Ambon was over a Muslim's refusal to pay a taxi fare, and when the local Imam explained why they had attacked first, he quoted as fact that if a Muslimknew an attack would take place he was allowed to pre-empt it,
Breadwinner
at April 11, 2006 8:11 AM
If ifs and ands were pots and pans we'd have no need of tinkers.
Very few Muslims confront the problems of Islam; most just explain them away. Irshad Manji is an exception. I think she is sincere but she has her work cut out. There's the Koran, for a start. And the Hadith. And the Sira. Apart from that, it's a piece of cake.
Abraham did not take Isaac to Mount Moriah ...
Who's Moriah?
Posted by: Interested at April 11, 2006 8:25 AM
As a background to Ali perhaps read this:
http://www.killingthebuddha.com/damn_nation/allah_wills_it.htm
This piece was written before the above and he seems to be caught in an Islam that he sees no hope in.
From this stand point, in his own blog he seems to attenpt to reinvent Islam to enable it to function in the West and to comply to his own knowledge of humanity as revealed to him from his time in the west.
He makes it clear that his ideas of Islam are his ideas.
What is interesting is that he strives to modify Islam to be something else - even now he cannot give up Islam, he is still bound to it.
I think Ali and Naseem on this site are good examples of people that are obviously not at peace with Islam but still cannot give it up, and therfore strive to make it comply to truths of humanity they have experiencd.
I for one - whilst not agreeing with them - applaud them for making the first step and questioning what amounts to their whole identity, history and culture.
Posted by: mazztr at April 11, 2006 8:45 AM
Paolo: No. I didn't see any way to email her at her site.
Mazztr: I don't think, from the looks of this, that Ali is questioning his identity, history, or culture. That is precisely my point: it is not enough to fashion a benign Islam if one does so simply by ignoring the evidence to the contrary. If he confronted the evidence to the contrary and attempted to refute it, that would be a different thing. But he didn't. That gives rise to the possibility that he is just trying to fool gullible non-Muslims who don't realize that there is any evidence to counter what he is saying.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 11, 2006 8:54 AM
I think just a tiny amount of slack should be cut for Rich "DhimmiBoy" Lowry. Considering where he once was on the subject, admitting that "Islam is a religion of peace....seems a polite fiction" is big step forward. Give him another year or two, and he might even revisit his unseemly fondness for Ayatollah Sistani.
at April 11, 2006 8:58 AM
Robert,
Thanks for the feedback - never received any from the main man before!
It's difficult to fully understand where Ali comes from; he is a Muslim, once a leader of his community, however, he is torn - a thinker not at peace with his beliefs. I don't get the impression he's a subversive trying to pull the wool over our eyes (intentionally).
However, I agree that fashioning a benign Islam based on untruth is of no benefit and simply covers over the cracks.
I believe Ali can see the 'problems' in Islam and I suppose my hope is that he finds the way to leave Islam - i do believe to do so would be to deny the basis of his existing identity, culture and history.
From anecdotal evidence i think most leave Islam for another - usually Christain - religion, rather then just atheism. As such, one would have to deny the validity of the former Islamic life.
That being said, I agree he has to at sometime grasp the truths of Islam and deal with them, not just modify them to suit his sensibilities.
Regards
Posted by: mazztr at April 11, 2006 9:19 AM
Ali claimed:
"Similarly, on another ocasion, there was a Jewish neighbor of his who often reviled him. He used to stand in his window as Muhammad passed by and yell insults. One day Muhammad noted that the insults had stopped. After some days passed Muhammad realized that something was wrong and he went to find out if something was amiss. He discovered that the man was on his death-bed. Muhammad stayed with him until he passed away."
I have heard about this being a faked story. Somewhere (I think on faithfreedom) pointed out it is a Bahai-Story originating around 1800 something. It's not in the koran nor in the hadiths. But Moslems use ist every time when they try to convince others how tolerant and peaceful islam is.
Posted by: buraq_is_dead at April 11, 2006 9:26 AM
RS,
I found the email link on the Anchoress site and emailed her a link to this entry.
at April 11, 2006 9:59 AM
"We should want to do all we reasonably can to create the conditions in which the positive elements within Islam flower."
+++++++++++++++
If I could find positive elements within Islam, I would personally fertilizer them.
Posted by: Texican at April 11, 2006 9:59 AM
Spencer is right, Lowry is dead wrong.
The problem is the result of ignorance; muslims don't know their own religious book(s), they mostly do as they are told. That is why we should fear 'peaceful muslims' just as much as the militant ones. Most muslims can easily be coerced into violence.
Having said that, however, most christians do not know what the bible says either.....what a pity. And secularists mean well, but good intentions will save exactly no one.
Islam vs. the world is a test to see who possess the TRUTH. It may well be our final exam on earth.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 11, 2006 10:05 AM
One fallacy of the Anchoress's method is that she has no way of gauging whether Ali is a mainstream Muslim or the Hans Kung of Islam.
On another note, I think the term Rich is looking for is not "polite fiction" but "noble lie."
Posted by: AnneCrockett at April 11, 2006 10:12 AM
"Religion of Peace"
I by no means claim to be an expert in Arabic, or Islam for that matter. If, in Arabic, the positioning of the letters, "S", "L", and "m", in that specific order, and those letters in this order mean anything to do with "submission", "surrender", and/or "at peace"....wouldn't it stand to reason that when one calls Islam a "religion of Peace" they're correct to a point? Duplicity aside, I mean I recently learned "la astasalim" translates to, "I do not surrender". Just a question/thought.
Additionally, when I was in Israel, I, like so many others, toured the "Holy Land". During one of the places of remembrance, the guide was questioned about the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, in the context of "turning the other cheek". I have never heard the answer she gave before, nor since, but at least to me it makes complete sense. She defined "turning the other cheek" as, and I paraphrase: When faced with a adversary, or unknown foe, and the foe strikes you, either physically, emotionally, spiritually, or any number of topics on the "cheek", offer the other "cheek". As if to say, "you got one hit, and 'I' was not prepared for your strike. Now 'I' offer the other, standing ready and meeting 'you' on equal footing." If the "foe" does not strike again, then they are in the inferior position, thus making their "strike" irrelavent, and thus notifying 'you' that this entity is not to be trusted. If 'you' are stricken again, while on equal footing, the "foe" either knows "your' abilities and/or will not stop until 'they' get what they want and/or are crazy.
In other words, turning the other cheek has never meant to submit. It is a chance for the "foe" to reconsider their strike, and allow the offended party to prepare themselves.
Tempest Fugit, momento mori.
Posted by: SickBoy at April 11, 2006 10:23 AM
In actual fact, the worst thing we can do is pretend Islam is something it's not. Actual moderate Muslims are all too aware of what's going on. We don't need to hold their hands when we point out a news article documenting another brutal attack on innocent civilians where the attackers quote scripture to justify the brutality.
We, questioners or critics of Islam, are their best friends in the world. Hopefully, for them, some of the seemingly endless anger in the ummah will come towards us as they try to persuade their co-religionists to turn their exploding vests into plow shares.
Posted by: Beagle at April 11, 2006 10:38 AM
SickBoy, this guide must have taken the Krav Maga class for turning the other cheek.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 11, 2006 10:53 AM
SickBoy,
I've never believed "turn the other cheek" meant what some Christians seem to think it means. That's the best explanation I've heard for what otherwise would be an idiotic statement.
"Stand there and let the aggressor beat you to a pulp"? Sorry, that wasn't cutting it for me.
Posted by: Beagle at April 11, 2006 10:57 AM
I've heard an alternative explanation for the "turn the other cheek" phrase; I believe it was a Catholic theologian's, and I'll try to track it down.
What Jesus was referring to was the spiteful, disrespectful daily manner of the Romans to the Jews. Jesus was recommending that if a Jew were slapped in the face, he was to *defiantly* turn the other cheek to the attacker. In other words, Jesus was arguing for the technique of passive resistance used by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, et. al., at least in this context.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at April 11, 2006 12:02 PM
I too have heard the theory that Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek was in a way a defiant response to the Roman occupation. However, the statement in it's context (whether or not the previous idea is also correct) was a direct statement against the extent to which the Jewish religious leaders of the time applied the idea of "an eye for an eye". Christ was, in effect, saying "You can do better than that". Forgive one another. And He followed it with another statement that is in direct contrast to islamic ideas or theology...
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:43-45
at April 11, 2006 12:24 PM
Hey Robert,
I noticed you posted a link in this post to the USC.edu site which contains Islamic texts. There is a specific section in there that contains the 10 biggest misconceptions about Islam, all of which you refute here but not with exact arguments against their arguments. Where can I find the specific knowledge that would refute the ones on this link which contains NUMEROUS Islamic passages which might support the sites argument.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING1
Posted by: Avatar at April 11, 2006 12:35 PM
This important article raises an issue: should Infidels play Let's Pretend in order to avoid giving offense to some not-so-bad Muslims, hoping that in this way they will manage to rein in the bad ones, and in avoiding giving offense, continuing to hide what we either know or can easily discover about Islam?
Were the entire Infidel world well-informed about the matter, were Europeans for example constantly swimming in intelligent material about Islam, then possibly one could argue that a deliberate lie might be useful if it prevented those "moderate" Muslims from taking offense.
But that is not the world as it is. Lying to the enemy, or to those in the enemy camp, is one thing, but lying to Infidels, when most of them are very confused and very ignorant about Islam, is not acceptable, is dangerous.
Besides, those Muslims who do know what is in the texts, and do know something about how non-Muslims have been treated, and yet continue to call themselves Muslims, are not exactly people whose sensibilities Infidels need be solicitous of. In fact, it is more likely that "moderation" is expressed only by those Muslims who have sensed most keenly that Infidels are no longer willing to accept the sanitized version of Islam, are learning on their own and will not be overawed or browbeaten by those who, whether in or out of universities, state -- and are repeatedly caught stating -- obvious falsehoods. If someone tells me there is "nothing" in Islam about punishing apostates, or tells me that there is "nothing" in Islam that justifies the mistreatment of women, or that the history of Islam has been one of "tolerance" and "peace" (without explaining what that "tolerance" and what that "peace" mean in the Muslim understanding) I am justified not merely in being suspicious, but in rejecting entirely whatever that person presumes to say about Islam.
Should the policy of Infidels be based on Let's Pretend? Won't that lead to disaster, by encouraging Infidels generally to continue to be ignorant, and by relaxing the pressure on Muslims to recognize -- because Infidels are openly recognizing -- what is wrong with Islam?
Is it better to base policies involving our futures, our laws, customs, understandings, our art, our science, our lives, on a lie, in order not to offend, in the vague hope that the nice Muslims will somehow - how? -- triumph over the un-nice ones?
Does that make more sense than doing something else -- which is to disseminate the truth, including all the unpleasantness, about what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and putting Muslims always and everywhere, within Dar al-Islam and here in the countires the Infidel nature of which we wish to preserve, coute que coute, on the defensive? They should be on the defensive. The nonsense and lies should always be exposed. Only thus will the conditions be created in which Muslims themselves will have to connect the political, economoic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim societies to Islam itself.
Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2006 2:42 PM
The turn the other cheek passage has to be taken in context of the whole of the Beatitudes.
I think there are many explanations regarding this passage but only the most liberal 'un biblical' element of Christain theology says its an example of Christ's pacifisism.
Christ was not a pacifist and upheld the rights of states and individuals to defend themselves proportionately.
Posted by: mazztr at April 11, 2006 2:42 PM
Thanks for the differing perspectives regarding my "cheeks". I, as others, have their "beliefs" and convictions. I love my "enemies" because they show me how to become even stronger. I love my enemies because they teach me how to be more successful. I do not believe in an "Eye for an eye". It is a slippery slope into despair, and in my eyes quickly lead to final chapters in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". However, understanding all the subtle nuances (sp?) within the "turning" of ones "cheeks", I offer this: The guide on my aformentioned trip was a Christian. Perhaps she has been influenced by the shape shifting within Jerusalem and all points in between. Yes, the passive agression/defiance of Jesus is well documented, and has helped many peoples throughout the millenia. Yet, one must remember, Jews were a great and powerful army during those days, and to some extent still are. Unfortunately, for those timid souls walking the Earth today, I do NOT subscribe to "tip-toeing through the Tulips". Yes, one can argue for Peace and "tolerance". Just as in all things, there is a positive and negative relationship, and without travelling that road.... Who will "fight" submission? Who will stand toe to toe with evil? Who will tuck your children in? I see how the Negev has been scarred, fields of Europe taxed and plundered. Did offering the other side repel anyone? Once one passes on, there is no "Faith"; only knowledge. My eyes have already seen the Glory. Peace is not a timid mouse. She is not a damsel in distress. It is not a cash crop either. No, rather, she is a Vixen, swanky and very selective. It is a violent sea at night. It is a wild animal, always attempting to take the path of least resistance. In other words, Peace must be faced toe to toe. I don't fear evil, I embrace it with a mighty squeeze. I sail the storms, with a compass glowing and true. So I beg for your pardon if I my views are too aggressive (It's the Non-PC Western man in me). Which three words make you sick to your stomach? What cliche makes you clench your jaw? What 3 do you detest?
I say, Peace must be conquered.
at April 11, 2006 3:25 PM
Avatar
RE: 10 Misconceptions about Islam
Actually, Robert and Hugh have answered all of these questions in one form or another. I'll go through each one briefly. Most of the "answers" are actually forms of taqiyya.
1. Islam is a religion of peace.
The author says this is a misconception because the root does not mean salam but al-silm which is submission. He is 100% correct.
2. Islam is against human rights because it is against democracy and allows for slavery.
You'll notice that the author doesn't say that Islam supports human rights 100% or opposes them entirely. What he does say is that in order for the law of society to be legitimate, it must derive from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Anything that contradicts the Q/S is in contradiction to Islam and should not be made into a law. "Consultation" does not happen with the masses or women (that's the impression he tries to give for Western consumption, but it does happen among clerics). This consultation is only applicable to new situations where the Q/S have not yet been applied. After the gates of ijtihad were closed, most of the Islamic legal corpus had been deterimined, the only debate that is left is over trivial matters dealing with new technology and new cultural situations. All laws derive from Allah and that is the true defintion of human rights because Allah knows what is right for humans, not Western intellectuals.
His non-treatment of slavery is typical. He doesn't say that Islam forbids slavery because it doesn't. It is a right of every Muslim male to own a slave if he can afford it. The fact that slaves can be freed is not unique to Islam, the freeman is as old a concept as slavery itself. Although freeing slaves may be considered good in Islam, it is not obligatory like jihad or zakat. So he is stressing too much importance on this passage. Also, there was no abolitionist movement in Islam and slavery still exists in Islam today (especially in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan). To say that Muslims who mistreat slaves are bad Muslims is a cop out considering Arab Muslims were responsible for the bulk of the hideous black African slave trade. Even if they mistreat slaves, Allah will forgive them, so no biggie.
3. Women are inferior to men in Islam because of: polygyny, women receive half the inheritence of a man, only men can marry people of the book, and the hijab.
"Different but equal". He does not deny any of this but explains the "reasons" for them. He claims that Allah loves both sexes equally but then why did Muhammad say that there were more women in hell than men? Why do men get virgins and boys in paradise for their pleasure while the women only get their husband? The afterlife for female Muslims is also reflective of their worldy life in comparison to male Muslims, that is it is several (not one) degrees lower. The idea that a woman can reject her suitor does not reflect reality. A woman must obey her parents and arranged (and cosangious) marriages are common and not restricted to Arab Muslims. Muhammad also said that a woman's silence reflects her consent to be married. No devout Muslim can claim that women have the same status as men because Allah intended for them to be different, that is why they come up with excuses for some of the rules (i.e. the hijab prevents "exploitation" and rape).
4. Islam is well suited for Arabs because most Muslims are Arab and the Qur'an is in Arabic.
The author points out two obvious facts that most Muslims are not Arabs and that the Qur'an is in Arabic. However, he misses the point entirely. The aHadith holds Muslim Arabs in high esteem and even calls them "the best of people". The caliph must be an Arab. Turkish and Persian rulers called themselves sultans and shahs because they could not claim to be a caliph due to the lack of Arab ancestry. The fact that the Qur'an is in Arabic only reflects linguistic monopoly that Arabs have over the majority of non-Arab Muslims. Muslims must learn from the Arabs about their religion and the Arabs are guaranteed protection as an ethnicity in Islam because they are the ones who understand the Q/S the best. The same protection does not extent to other Muslim races such as Kurds, Chechens, Bangladeshis, Malays, etc. because they are expendable since they are converts and they are generally held to a lower degree by Muslim Arabs.
5. Islam rejects Jesus because Jesus is not the Son of God.
The author states basically that this is true. They do reject Jesus' divinity but they do recognize him as a prophet. However, the Muslim Jesus is very different from the Christian Jesus and many of the Muslim Jesus stories are inaccurate retellings of the New Testament and the apocryphal accounts. He is also intrepretted through the lens of Muhammad and is demoted to a lower standard eventhough Muslims believe that Jesus performed miracles whereas Muhammad did not. The "moon splitting" is a recent addition and not an ancient tradition. Even in Pakistan they attributed even more miraculous events to Muhammad if you care to read some William Muir.
6. Islam orders the worship of man because Muslims are also called Muhammadeans.
Officially, Muslims do not worship Muhammad (orthodox ones anyways) as the author points out. However, the image of Muhammad is treated to the same extent as a diety (it cannot be pictured or blasphemed). Muhammad is actually beyond criticism much like a diety and he is the "perfect man" for all time despite being entirely human. And as Hugh pointed out "Allah knows best, but so does Muhammad". Muhammad's actions and inactions in the aHadith are held to be just as important as the words of Allah. Although he officially isn't a god, Muhammad is venerated to the same extent as a god and that should give some Muslims some pause on whether they really are monotheists afterall.
7. Islam tolerates the killing of innocents because: Muslims can be terrorists, Muslims engage in `holy wars' (jihad), Islam spread by the sword, it has a harsh and cruel judicial system.
All are true but the author tries to get into a semantics game with us. Muslims cannot be terrorists because when a Muslim wages a true jihad it is in defense of Islam. What he fails to mention is that what constitutes "defense of Islam" is a very broad topic and almost any conflict with an infidel can be deemed a defense of Islam even if the Muslim initiates that conflict. Even if it isn't for self-defense, jihad can still be waged. The author writes: "A related misconception to jihad is often propagated by Muslims who say that "Jihad is only for self-defense of physical borders." The Qur'an and Sunnah refute this notion categorically. As the verses cited above show, jihad is obligatory wherever there is injustice, and Muslims need not acknowledge imaginary lines around the earth when it comes to upholding this obligation". The issue of what constitutes an "innocent" is also problematic. If an infidel prevents the spread of Islam or causes "corruption", then that infidel ceases to be innocent even if he is not part of an army.
The author says sharia is not harsh and that there is a lot of "debate". Well, that's not really true. The interpretation of sharia varies from country to country, but often not by very much. Repentence of a sin only extends to certain cases such as renouncing your apostasy and returning to Islam (and even THEN you can still be killed!). Repentence does not extend to every crime such as homosexuality.
The author denies that Islam spread by the sword by referencing black Africa, Central Asia, and Indonesia (of all places). This is patently false. Much of black Africa that came into contact with Islam was enslaved and many were forcefully converted. Same thing even happened in Iran with their Armenian population (who were there as slaves as well). It has happened by Muslim powers before the rise of the nation state and apostate rulers. The author can deny it all he wants but history tells a different story. I won't get into Central Asia but I would advise you to read the history of that subject and realize that Islam did not spread by missionaries but by armies. Indonesia was a little different because rulers converted their entire populations and these populations had very little say in the matter. Dhimmitude and jizya also counts as duress because the penalties were so harsh that over several generations, the dhimmis converted to Islam to escape their lowly status in Muslim society. What Allah thinks about converting to Islam under duress is irrelevant because it has happened and it is still happening. The terrorists that kidnapped Jill Carroll wanted to convert her to Islam. Is that duress or not? You tell me.
8. Islam is intolerant of other religion because Islam condemns other religions as false.
The author laughably says this is not true and then goes on to say: "The Creator has taught us in the Qur'an and Sunnah that all other `religions' and ways of life are unacceptable to Him if a person is aware of Islam". So if you know about Islam, then it is unacceptable to be an infidel. How tolerant! He goes onto say that the dhimmis were tolerated (read: extorted for their wealth and humilitated) and that to kill a dhimmi would ban you from entering paradise. This is a weak hadith and not taken seriously because historically, dhimmis were always under attack for the silliest of pretenses. Also, if the dhimmi lost his protection (i.e. didn't pay the jizya) he would lose his protected status and could be plundered and killed. He fails to mention that for some reason. Read some Bat Ye'or for more on this topic.
9. Islam is an Afro-centrist cult.
This is false. Muslims do not recognize the Nation of Islam as true Muslims, but apostates. They also do not accept Elijah Muhammad as a prophet. The majority of Muslims generally hold black people in low regard and they would be aghast to hear that Muhammad was a black man.
10. Islam produces a lazy, uneducated society because: all things come from God, and so fatalism is OK, modern technology and science are condemned.
The first part is right but the second part is wrong. Fatalism is prevalent through Muslim society and there is no confidence in humanity. The author himself ends this article with: "Anything good in this document is from Allah, while everything bad in it is from us". On average, Muslim countries produce very little. The ones that produce the most are Malaysia and Indonesia and they have a sizeable non-Muslim minority that are in the millions. Without the Chinese both of those countries would be in the same financial situation as Egypt. Muslims are commanded to seek knowledge but specifically religious knowledge. The majority of Muslims are illiterate but for those that are literate, they read more books about Islam than say books about science and history. "Seeking knowledge even if it takes to you China", as Ibn Warraq points out refers only to religious knowledge. Worldly knowledge is not secondary but actually tertiary to Islam. The Q/S have all of the answers to life in them if you can spot them and know how to read it properly. There is no need to read the books of infidels to know about the world when the best author of worldy knowledge is Allah himself.
Technology is generally not discouraged if it does not have a disasterous affect on Muslim society. Most Muslims have sattelite television, cell phones, and the internet. Military technology is considered the best because it will help Muslims fight the infidels and medical technology is also good because it will make the ummah remain strong and the infant mortality rate will go down. The thing is, Muslims don't invent this technology themselves because Islam prevents free inquiry so they import it from infidels.
--
This misconceptions aren't too difficult to refute. But this sort of thing is so commonplace among Muslim apologists that it becomes tiring responding to them. However, I do appreciate the author's candor for some of these questions.
at April 11, 2006 5:01 PM
Many interesting posts here re "turn the other cheek". I agree that there is much to explore there regarding what Christians should do when faced with actual violence. But the fact is that we're not even there yet - not where the substance of this post is concerned in any case. This post is about whether or not to maintain a fiction - namely that Islam is a religion of peace - so as not to alienate people, which basically comes down NOT to the issue of whether to return violence for violence (an eye for an eye) but instead the issue of whether or not to hurt peoples feelings (and possibly "inflame" their emotions) by speaking the truth.
On that score - whether to be truthful or not when faced with what is manifestly false (and one need not be a Christian to grasp how manifestly false and absurd Islam is) - the question of whether or not to turn the other cheek doesn't even apply. This isn't a matter of how to deal with violence. It's a simple matter of telling the truth or lying (whether to flatter the other or preserve one's hide or avoid unpleasantness or any other number of ultimately cowardly motivations to maintain falsehood). There is no ambiguity here about the right course of action from a Christian perspective or even from an agnostic humanistic perspective. The fundamental obligation here from any moral perspective (whether Christian or humanist or Buddhist, Islam being the glaring exception) is simply to SEE WHAT IS - and to speak the truth about WHAT IS - and let the chips fall where they may. If everyone does that now, we may actually avoid having to answer the much harder question looming down the road of what to do in the face of actual physical violence directed towards us.
Posted by: Caroline at April 11, 2006 8:33 PM
Well said Caroline, but I respectfully disagree: I think those that aren't telling the truth, whether or not it is the traditional lie or evasion thereof due to spiritual practice, is violence in and of itself. A lie or half truth, is in fact a "strike" at Honor. Ripping the offendee's, be it a institution or man, flesh. Enough lies can eventually bring an entity to its knees, or even worse. Conversely, truth can be even MORE violent to that which is a facade re: Religion of Peace. If someone thinks "violent" acts, but does not initiate action a "violent" person? Likewise, is a person who always thinks "non-violent" thoughts, but squashes a bug considered "violent"? Absolute truth is violence. An enemy will only be defeated with more ruthless action than the enemy has assaulted with. Resignation is only for an opponent who practices Honor with the same prejudice as their opponent; equally. Wonder if all the "therapy", and "group hugs" has worked for Manson yet? Whether it is bits and bytes, "mindless automatons", or high order detonations...it is violence, and I, for one, refuse to keep turning....and turning....and turning....and turning... There is no such thing as a "Religion of Peace", only peaceful religions. Hell, even the Buddhists say, "If Buddha is in the path of enlightenment, kill Buddha."
Posted by: SickBoy at April 11, 2006 9:42 PM
Muslims pose the greatest threat to western civilization when they are allowed in.
It is bad enough that we buy their oil and put trillions of dollars into dangerous hands.
The "clever" ploy of calling Islam peaceful is apparently believed by our citizens. Troubling since some of these citizens are guarding the gates.
Critical Muslim mass has unfortunately been reached in Europe.
Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2006 10:14 PM
To SickBoy:
My two cents on "turning the other cheek":
It is one thing if I turn my cheek when I am struck. It is another thing if I see someone else, an innocent person such as a child, say, being physically attacked. Then I often have no moral option but to intervene with force to stop the attack. That's an example of why just about any Christian, despite the 'turning the cheek' story, will agree we need some kind of police and military. For similar reasons Christianity has for many centuries tried to develop a clear concept of just war. Vladimir Solovyev's War, Progress, and the End of History is a brilliant and entertaining fictional dialogue that goes into the Christian debate over pacifism vs. just war, among other issues.
The New Testament story of 'turning the other cheek' contains nothing to rule out defense of innocent others from aggression -- the story has more to do with oneself responding on behalf of oneself. Even then, it doesn't really mean no self-defense -- we can use force to defend ourselves without doing so vengefully, hatefully or aggressively. Force can even be used lovingly, however rare that might be. 'Turning the other cheek' is meant to indicate that love brings us to a plane that is completely above merely reactive tit for tat. Someone might 'turn the other cheek' spiritually or emotionally, not physically, but that inward action would profoundly alter the kind of physical defense/response offered to an aggressor. It could mean the difference between trying to destroy him and merely seeking to stop him or restrain him. I have seen physical altercations of this sort, where a physical aggressor was repelled with the absolute minimal physical force required and without malice. The gentleness and care for the aggressor was there in the midst of physical combat. I don't think there was anything in that behavior out of tune with 'turning the other cheek'. It is a question of the spirit of one's action.
I don't at all buy that tour guide's interpretation, though it's interesting. 'Turning the other cheek' is not some tactical gambit. It's about the power of love to completely transform a situation. That's what the New Testament presents as being central and ultimate: love.
I believe a woman is within her rights to do whatever is necessary to stop a rapist from victimizing her. However I read a case showing an example of the tranformative power of love in response to aggression. True story:
A rapist invaded a woman's home and began to rape her in her own bed. He had a knife, as I recall the story. Her response shocked the rapist to the point where he ran away. What did she do that made him leave? She refused to treat him as an alien monster. Even as she wept at the horror of the situation for herself, she wept for him as well, for the tragedy that another human being should be unable to see her humanity or feel compassion for her; she felt deep sorrow for the heartlessness of the situation. As I recall, she decided through her tears to treat him lovingly, she refused to hate or fear him, or to think anything human foreign to her, and she started caressing his arm, as if something heroically spiritual in her absolutely refused to not love him despite his hate. She knew love can see through hate, transform it, and that hate victimizes its agents. This compassionate response (or, perhaps you will insist it was Stockholm Syndrome) to the rape so shocked the rapist that he immediately stopped and ran away.
As I say, a woman would be within her rights to kill such a man to stop him. And this woman had no means of self-defense. At the same time, Gandhi, M.L.King, Jr. and, I think, this woman show that in some circumstances, love can be utterly transformative in the face of aggression. That seems to be the message offered by the New Testament, and that seems to be the point of turning the other cheek, not pacifism or any other silly universalizing 'ism.' (Still, I would advise a woman in that situation to try something different if possible: pseudo-seductively slide a hand to the rapist's you-know-whats, and then grab on to those as tight and hard as you can and don't let go. He will immediately become completely helpless in pain and you will be able to go to a phone, forcing him to come along in agony, and you can dial with one hand while you keep him in paralyzed pain with the other. This also happened and was reported in the media some years ago. In that case, the 'victim' decided to let the rapist go for some reason, and he ran out of her house naked and in agony. I believe she had called the police and they got him.)
The difference between the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman civilization on the one hand and Islam on the other is not in the will to self-defend. The difference is in what is defined as self-defense. For Islam, the mere fact of Western pluralism is interpreted by many religious Muslims as an attack against Islam. For those many, 'self-defense' means gradually pressing all non-Muslims into 'protected' status, i.e., discriminatory subjection, leading to eventual conversion of everyone to Islam. See Quran 9:29, for one example.
- Omar
at April 12, 2006 2:41 AM
Islamquest: excellent comment, and I agree with every point. I only think that you should have enlarged on the reason why the State - that is the community in its corporate capacity, "res publica", a concept that existed as the Christian Church was growing - is entitled to use violence and why war can be just. The Magistrate, says one epistle, wears the sword, and should wear the sword; not, it adds, for the good, but for the wicked. For that reason, another epistle demands that Christian teachers and presbyters should make their flock pray for the Emperor and for public magistrates; from the beginning, Christianity was not a rebellious or "alternative" cult, but one that fully recognized the need for and legitimacy of secular justice. And the reason for that is that Christianity, unlike Islam, recognizes the existence of an innate darkness in man - call it original sin if you want - whose results are spread all over the earth and are pretty much ineradicable. A saint will turn the other cheek; but a saint will also have a the common sense (a marked quality of many saints) to recognize that you cannot trust the other person to be saintly. Worse still is to leave justice in such cases to private vengeance; not only because that denies the corporate character of the offence - any crime is an insult against the whole community, which exists under its own laws and cannot exist otherwise - but also because it leaves an equally fallible human being to be ruled by the worst of his or her own passions. The problem with private vengeance is that it tends to reduce the avenger to the same moral level as the original criminal - he has killed, so I'll kill him; he has plotted, so I'll plot deeper; he has been cruel, so I'll be even crueller. It is out of fear of the unredeemed, or at least sinful, human nature of the single individual, that Christianity has always tended to restrict violence to the hands of "the magistrate", the secular power, and that under a definite law.
Posted by: Paolo at April 12, 2006 5:16 AM
Islamquest,
Thanks for the enlightenment. I offer this:
Fire is a "violent" reaction, matter escaping one form to another at a very rapid pace. Fire, has multiple applications from heat to protection, signaling to cleansing, et al etc, yet it still is a violent reaction/action. Water, likewise, can provide protection, is a vehicle for infinite substances, and can drown a fire. Is water "non violent"? Is water not cooling and refreshing at times? For the sake of argument, assume "fire" is "hate, and "water" is "love". Does this change the premise i.e. Is not love a powerful sword, whether spiritual or physical, and thus this sword, in all of her "Glory", deserve not to be thrust at the heart of evil, in all of its demonic grandeur? I agree, one must choose their battles i.e. when to "assault" and when to "repel" and when to reconnoiter ones "adversary", and when to resign. Accordingly, we ALL know this is a timeless argument, well at least from about 625 A.D. as it relates to this argument, and will NOT be solved unless the ones needing an assault of "Love" allow the help to help them. I think ol' "Ali" is, well, full of baloney. La astasalim. I do believe in an escalation of "force" to defend and protect in the Western sense. I will intervene for those who cannot defend themselves. However, if a "neighbor" says they will kill me and my family, raze my home because he doesn't like the way it's built, salt my Earth because my crop of Life is too grand, sends their "family" on "Martyr Operations" in an attempt to further my family's spiritual extortion, and eventually wounds me... well... Here comes the full assault of "Love", in ALL of her facets. How many years again was the Iberian Peninsula darkened? Asia Minor? Europe? Choose Life, choose Love. Choose to stand toe to toe. I like David's approach...when the enemy is asleep set the Fox's tail ablaze, and send him through the enemy's camp...and Sharon's hand of refuge and treatment as was done in the Sinai. (This is submitted without malice)
at April 12, 2006 7:42 AM
Igor,
Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to educate myself as much as possible when it comes to typical muslim tools regarding arguments about the religion of peave and tolerance. I need to know how to refute them...
at April 12, 2006 11:06 AM
Igor,
BTW, my biggest concern was the Quranic passages that the author uses to refute these misconceptions. I know we could all disagree in more than one way with the authors misconceptions but when he quotes quaranic verses to refute the misconceptions, sometimes the only way to argue them is to quote the quran and sunnah that might refute the authors chosen passages.
at April 12, 2006 11:15 AM
No, "islam" means submission and does not mean "peace". They come two different root words (Arabic words, like Hebrew are formed from root words of mostly three consonants). The root words for "islam" and "peace" are not the same, even though they have the same consonants. In some ways, that would be like associating "hate" and "hit" because they share the same consonants (of course, Arabic is a consontal language, different from English).
Muhammad used to send letters to neighboring rulers inviting them to Islam and he always ends his letters with "Taslem Aslam", meaning "surrender and you will be safe". Taslem comes from the same root word as islam. And Aslam comes from the same root word as peace. Two different root words.
I wonder how many people have been duped with "Islam means peace".
Posted by: yaqub at April 12, 2006 12:51 PM
Paolo said:
from the beginning, Christianity was not a rebellious or "alternative" cult, but one that fully recognized the need for and legitimacy of secular justice. And the reason for that is that Christianity, unlike Islam, recognizes the existence of an innate darkness in man - call it original sin if you want...
Christianity not rebellious? In the way you mean it, I agree. But at the same time it seems to me that Christianity refrains from rebelling against earthly authority so as to be able -- from an independent, "otherworldly" position outside the realm of power -- to criticize the character (not the existence) of that earthly, secular authority. In a totalitarian state in which Christianity was allowed no independence, I don’t know that Christians would necessarily be un-Christian to rebel. And even in a democratic state, the ‘outsider’ status that the founder of Christianity intended for Christians, vis-ŕ-vis secular power, implies neither rebellion nor acquiescence in that secular power – but something in between: criticism of government policy, urging change and improvement, diminution or expansion of this or that government activity. Not that Christianity is only there to critique government behavior. Far from it. But anyway, from your posts I'm sure this is all old hat to you (not that you necessarily agree with the hat).
Interesting that you can cite biblical epistles for the point you make in the above quoted paragraph (I don't know the epistles very well). At any rate 'innate darkness' is one aspect of what Christianity recognizes. What you are saying sounds Augustinian, too.
The idea that Islam does not recognize an innate darkness in man is intriguing. Care to flesh that out a little? Islam certainly claims many will go to hell. But still, maybe you have a point. The Islamic idea that a City of God should be created on earth by Muslims with their unquestionable book as perfect guidance -- that idea does indeed suggest a naive belief that human beings can be without flaw or innate darkness.
Such naivete seems one of Islam's most notable characteristics. How ironic and strange that a religion so emphatic about the transcendent otherness of God should so badly confuse God with an earthly thing like a book. The Muslims complain about making this or that "partners with Allah," co-deifying Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or whatever. I know it's useless of me to say, but the Muslims certainly make the Quran partners with Allah. From that point of view Muslims are dualist idolators, and their idol book should be smashed, as they smashed the Bamiyan Buddhas -- except I don't believe in smashing idols other than metaphorically -- which is what we try to do around here I guess. As they say in Star Wars, metaphors be with you.
Paolo said:
The problem with private vengeance is that it tends to reduce the avenger to the same moral level as the original criminal - he has killed, so I'll kill him; he has plotted, so I'll plot deeper; he has been cruel, so I'll be even crueller. It is out of fear of the unredeemed, or at least sinful, human nature of the single individual, that Christianity has always tended to restrict violence to the hands of "the magistrate", the secular power, and that under a definite law.
Yes, and when fleshed out in the course of history, that awareness of the sinful or imperfect nature of the individual seems to lead increasingly to the discovery that a society under rule of law is a society of checks and balances that prevents any one person, group or ideology from ruling, and permits free dissent, so that law can be based to some extent on impartial reason and humble compromise rather than on the blind arrogance of authoritarianism or on arbitrary private interests.
But we have been coming at all this mainly from the negative angle of human limitation. It is also true that the New Testament separated the political domain from the spiritual one out of a recognition that development of the positive and rather novel experience of spiritual freedom and universal human brotherhood/sisterhood required liberation of spiritual life from involvement in or control by secular power. (The centrality of the message of love in the NT is inseparable from support for spiritual freedom, though Christians don't always realize or remember this.)
Glad you liked the other post. I always enjoy reading your posts when I see them. - Omar
at April 13, 2006 5:01 AM
To SickBoy:
Thanks. I believe I understand and agree with you. - Omar
at April 13, 2006 5:04 AM
As far as the "turn the other cheek component" is concerned, here are some more good passages to debunk that myth (the last one is particularly explicit):
And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil).
– Sura 2:179
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.... Such is the reward of disbelievers.
– Sura 2:191
[A]nd one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you...
– Sura 2:194
at April 14, 2006 4:29 AM
turn the other cheek:
In Roman occupied Judaea, a Roman soldier was allowed to give a back handed slap (which would fall on the right cheek) to any subject he wished. But he was not allowed to punch them (which would fall on the left cheek) without cause.
By turning the other cheek you are showing this Roman soldier (who is acting legally but not morally) that you are neither afraid nor consumed by anger.
Today's application would be to verbal assaults.
at April 14, 2006 5:24 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)