THE REALITY OF THE RELIGION OF PEACE: HERBERT LONDON
The Reality of a Religion of Peace
by Herbert I. London
September 20, 2010 at 4:30 am
September 20, 2010 at 4:30 am
Ignorant opinion is unquestionably on the rise; although there are dozens of examples daily that prove this claim, the most absurd of these examples, is the one employed by government officials, academics, and political candidates: “Islam is a religion of peace.”
People who know nothing about Islam agree that most Muslims do not commit violent or terrorist acts, therefore the religion is peacefull; but that is a classic non sequitur. Most Germans in the 1930’s did not embrace the excesses of Nazism. Most Chinese did not subscribe to the slaughter of millions during Mao’s Long March. Most Russians did not support Stalin’s purges.
It usually takes a minority to start a revolution or “killing fields.” The key feature of radicalization in any religion or political movement is the silence, or presumptive acquiesce, of the majority, who is mainly moderate.
When the moderates say, “I didn’t realize what was happening,” or, “It is not any of my business,” problems result. A minority controls a majority when the minority acts and the majority waits. It may be true that the majority wants to go about its business without resort to extremism, but this is irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff that makes us feel better and is meant to diminish a vision of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that fanatics influence history more than moderates; and, at the moment, it is the fanatics who rule Islam. Invariably well-meaning critics of Islam argue that the religion needs an enlightenment, a reformation, a period of re-evaluation. But overlooked by these critics is that Islam had this moment a century ago and it resulted in the ascendency of Wahhabism, an orthodox interpretation of the most extreme elements of the religion.
There is little doubt the Verses of The Sword, and other Medina-related suras in the Koran, promote violence to promote the religion. Many Muslims do not read these passages or take them seriously or regard them as a call to action. However, many do. And these are the fanatics who engage in suicide bombings, beheadings, stonings, and honor killings. Moreover, because these are the activists in the Islamic faith, they take over mosque after mosque and spread these views.
As I see it, the peaceful majority, the moderates whom the press representatives invariably reference, are cowed and extraneous. In Rwanda, where bloodshed and butchery reigned for a decade, one could argue that Rwandans were basically peace-loving people. But, in an incontrovertable lesson of histroy, the peace-loving are made irrelevant through silence.
The group that counts, the group that launches historical trends, is the extremist one that threatens everything we hold dear. To deny this is to deny a reality that allows fanatics to control our very existence.
It is, naturallly, difficult to come to grips with this condition. The comforting notion that most Muslims are “just like us” will not fly when one considers who are those moving historical forces. What this adds up to may be difficult to contemplate, but it is better to confront that reality now than at a time when it is too late to resist. Claude Bernard once noted, in a different but useful context, that “The secret of function is apparent to us if we look hard enough.” My guess is we’ve been spending more time on delusional ideas — what we would like to believe — than simply looking hard at Islam.
Related Topics: Herbert I. London
Comments are closed.
