Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

Articles, Comments

Why Truce and Not Peace?

Against the backdrop of the truce recently offered by Osama bin Laden, I would like to explore the possibility of whether a truce and peace are possible at all. Before anything else, we should consider that Islam does not acknowledge the equal value of other religions or, in general, belief systems with Islam itself. This is, of course, can only to be expected from an ideology (for an explanation please see previous articles). Islam forbids outright paganism and atheism. The presence of Christians and Jews, within the Islamic state, may be tolerated if they accept inferior position in regard to Muslims and pay the Jizya [in effect a money racket paid to Islamic regimes]. This background of Islamic beliefs must always be taken into account when dealing with an Islamic entity, or even an individual.

No doubt, such an attitude, which is set forth by the Koran, is bound to create difficulties for Muslims who happen to live in the West and who have to cooperate with Westerners. Perhaps, a great many Muslims have not read the Koran and are not aware of the finer points of Islamic teaching, although they usually assume that all goodness originates from Islam and the Koran. Perhaps, for Westerners, these are the "safest" types of Muslims, but they are passive and have no intellectual power to set up an alternative vision of Islam vis--vis the traditional Islamic religious authorities. Muslims who have experienced a deeper indoctrination will have greater difficulties when they live in liberal democracies. They need to lead a double life, maintained with unease and a good deal of hypocrisy, faking and double standards. Because according to a Hadith [Mohammed's speeches], a Muslim is duty-bound to intervene physically when he sees a transgression [defined in Islamic terms] and if he is not able to do that, then he must intervene by his tongue. If he is not able to do that, then he must, at least, oppose it in his own heart; but taking the last option is a manifestation of the weakness of the faith. According to Islam, the gravest transgression is disbelief in Allah and His apostle Mohammed - so imagine what a Muslim seeing all these Kafirs who are all having a good time (in Westerners' term, drinking and having fun) would be thinking.

An additional, equally disturbing, transgression for Muslims is the sexual liberation in the West. Not that Muslims hate sex. Sex should be expected to be the focus of major interest for Muslim men. After all, Mohammed, who is the model of the right and good behavior, was definitely obsessed with sex. No wonder therefore, that the Islamic emperors and Khalifs and even current Islamic rulers kept or keep tens or even hundreds of harems. And did not God promise tens of virgins for each good Muslim? What they hate is female equality and women's freedom in choosing their partners and the displaying of their charms. Perhaps, the sight of free women with strong personalities disturbs them because they set examples that Muslim women might like to emulate. Or the reason could be the fact that they find these women attractive and wish to marry some. Perhaps, even their vision of "the virgins in paradise" might look like Western women. However, they realize that their method of procuring wives will not work with Western women and their methods of avoiding cuckoldry, basically by confining women in their houses, will not work here either.

What frustrates Muslim men is not only that they cannot protest and suppress these transgressions but worse, that they must also repackage themselves so that they are acceptable to the host communities. However, being pragmatic, as Mohammed himself was, and recognizing the superiority of the Western powers as the host communities, Muslims use hypocrisy to take advantage of the Western values. A clear demonstration of this hypocrisy is the continual invocation of international laws /human rights, when they themselves do not believe in them when they are invoked by others and even some Muslims. In the name of justice they cry out for the rights of the Palestinians, when all the while the Koran enjoins them to subdue or put an end to others' beliefs, and when they have little interest in the suffering of other people at the hands of Muslims.

However, Muslims aside, the potential victims of Islam, who are effectively all non-Muslims, must not settle for the current state of affairs. The only reason that Europeans and Americans are not treated like the South Sudanese Christians and animists is the fact that Muslims are still in too weak a position. In previous articles I have discussed a number of points that are relevant here. Among those were the reasons that religions and other ideologies have evolved and the reason that the ideological institutions assume the nature, structure and history they assume. Accordingly, it could be said here that non-Muslims should not delude themselves into expecting peace from Muslims. An ideology cannot offer peace unless it submits to liberal democracy and accepts examining and discussing its worldviews and moral ideas on par with any other idea that does not claim sanctity or special status.

However, what is interesting in this regards is bin Laden's attempt to manipulate the Western audience. No doubt, he is in a desperate situation given that he is appealing to people whom his terrorists hope and try hard to destroy en masse. Nonetheless, it would be also interesting to see how much of this attempt will rub off on the Western liberal and the frustrated ex-Marxists-turned-Islamic-apologists, and how far this attempt will buoy them into starting a new campaign of putting pressure on the US and UK governments. In any case, this is an interesting start, because, having taken this route we either directly or indirectly, probably, through the intermediation of the liberal and ex-Marxists, ask bin Laden to clarify a few points. Why does he offer only a truce and not a permanent peace? What would he suggest regarding the Jizya? Will the "just conditions that we will stick to", he mentions, include some Jizya and how much the Jizya will it be? What are the Islamic "just conditions" to live in live in peace with the rest of the world? What would they suggest regarding the Muslims who live in the Western countries?

Muslims or their apologists need also answer another question of a different nature. What do they intend to do to stop the repression and atrocities in their own countries? Whether in Sudan, Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan the atrocities at the hands of the repressive regimes or terrorists groups go on and on. The reasons are clear. In the absence of liberal democracy; power struggles which should be expected from humans can only be determined through ideologies, and ideologies need violence. Muslims may, nowadays, blame the violence on foreign conspiracies. However, this is false, because the whole history of Muslims has never been free from bloodshed, whether that of non-Muslims or of other dissenting Muslims. If Muslims blame their miseries and shortcomings upon non-Muslims conspiracies, it would be amusing to see what story of conspiracy they would be able to concoct to explain the fact that Mohammed's companions killed each other (see How to respond to Islamic Terrorism). [i]

Of course, the recent experience of Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and the ever intensifying judicial and extra-judicial campaign of murdering the members of opposition groups in Iran confirms this view.  The unrest and lack of liberal democracy in the Islamic world are also what generates terrorism worldwide (see my previous articles). So a Muslim, offering peace to the world, should address the fundamental problems of Islam that lead to inevitable terrorism and internal and external wars, namely the absence of commitment to human rights, whether by the regimes or organizations or even individuals.

No doubt, we should not expect that the Muslim masses would denounce Islam over night - although this is exactly what they ought to do, eventually, if they are concerned with morality as they claim. Muslims, by taking advantage of the loopholes in the current liberal democratic understanding of religions which allows legal loopholes, are bidding their time perhaps (see KPCP for why liberal democracy looks as it does currently). However, we should expect Western governments to protect the lives of their citizens and human civilization. This can only be done by ensuring that Muslims living in their territories accept minimum initial conditions: that every Muslim should accept unequivocally, and perhaps vocally, and acknowledge that the rules and values of liberal democracy override any religious teaching or Islamic rules, and that he or she should not prevent or hinder any person, whether members of his or her own family or community, from exercising the rights and freedoms that a liberal democracy provides. Muslims who impose their practices and culture on the members of their community or family regardless of their wishes are also the main contributor to the formation of ghettos and a ghetto mentality. Moreover, declaring the supremacy of liberal democratic rules and values over Islamic ones should also imply that the Mosques that want to operate will have to convey such submission clearly and unequivocally through their teaching and preaching.

Neglecting these requirements will no doubt result in, sooner or later, overtaking Europe and the whole world by Islamic culture and tradition. The free world should not wait until Islamic countries possess atomic bombs and threaten human survival. Nor should the free world wait to be consumed from inside. Islam, like other ideologies, can only bring savagery to humanity. What should the liberal democracies expect from people who display human slaughtering? And what should the world expect from people whose "prophet" allowed himself and his thugs to take captive women as sex slaves?

Perhaps, liberal democracies have been lucky that Osama bin Laden has started the modern Islamic war of conquest prematurely! Now he may have realized his mistake and wants a respite. The West needs to recognize that bin Laden is insignificant and that, the real threat is looming which will pale the current crises into insignificance, if nothing is done. The needed measures should have taken decades ago. It is not too late yet. Taking the measures suggested here may require only limited force to contain violent opposition expected from some Muslims. To do nothing will result in much greater violent destruction in the future, that is if humanity survived Islam at all. There is still room for measures to be carried out without, or with minimum, force. Waiting longer will only increase the potential for a much more violent confrontation.

This evolutionary political theory I am offering, makes explaining the needed policies easy. The Western authorities can put forward the conditions and the arguments in their support openly and need not resort to any underhand methods. This theory can explain the history and nature of Islam to themselves and to others, and ask the Muslims to give up selfishness and delusion for their own sake for the sake of and human civilization.

[i] Similar discord and perhaps liquidation happened in Iran. Khomeini put Shariatmadari and Ayatollah Montazeri under house. Shariatmadari was even higher in religious rank than Khomeini. It was Shariatmadari who accorded Khomeini the title of Ayatollah, a move that saved him from execution. Montazeri was to be Khomeini's successor. There were also rumors that Khomeini followers killed Ayatollah Talakani, who was more left leaning but moderate in regard to application of Islam. The case is very obvious. It is not a matter of lucky coincidence that liberal democracies do not suffer from violence among the competitors for political power. Nor it is coincidence that all ideological systems have suffered violence and some still do.

Showan Khurshid is the author of : "Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics: A Political Theory based on the Evolutionary Theory" which can be purchased here

Comments Here