Response to Bob's Comment

Submitted by A (Keen) Student of Islam (India), Apr 3, 2005 at 15:50

It is not the conclusion of my presentation alone that Islam (or, for that matter, any prophet-inspired monotheism) is just not designed to tolerate "even the perception of world peace". It is a fact of human history that the doctrine of exclusivity is the problem.

Christian evangelism has certainly evolved from the Dark Ages. But NOT for the better! And it can't. On the contrary, its avarice and acquisitive impulse has increased as the human race has developed in science and technology, using newer and more subtle methods of purveying the same old falsehood with more devastating outcomes for target populations. (It is odd that science should be exploited to preach something as unscientific as faith!) Islamic activism is the more honest of the two because it makes no pretense of "service", "love" and the rest of those eminent sops. Gandhi needs to quoted here for his views on the motive for "Christian Love":

"In my opinion Christian missionaries have done good to us indirectly. Their direct contribution is probably more harmful than otherwise".

"The indirect contribution, on the other hand, of Christian missionary effort is great. It has stimulated Hindu and Mussalman religious research. It has forced us to put our house in order. The great educational and curative institutions of Christian missions I also count among indirect results, because they have been established, not for their own sakes, but as an aid to proselytising." [emphasis mine]

- "Collected Works", Vol.29, New Delhi 1968, p.326

Neither Christian Evangelization nor Islamic Jihad will ever truly "emerge" from the primitive compulsion to "deliver the message", whether or not the victim wants to listen.

What Bob states in the last paragraph of his comment is based on his modern-day perception of "peace". Who, in his right mind, would NOT want world peace? ALL OF US DO. In fact, to stretch the point, even war is justified on the grounds that peace will ultimately prevail. (This does not apply to those rare cases of megalomania where territorial conquest provided the impulse; e.g. Alexander, Chengiz Khan, Kublai Khan, etc.) No, Bob, it isn't the mere desire for peace, but what we mean by the word and how we aim to achieve that state, which is of greater moment. To the modern enlightened human being, the means ought to be as important as the ends. Again stretching a point, a graveyard with all of one's enemies buried beneath it is perhaps the most peaceful of places, but that is certainly not the peace one would wish to achieve! As I stated in my "dissertation", however, the Quranic concept of the word, which is what ultimately matters to every Muslim, does NOT imply that peace which the rest of humanity visualizes. Islamic peace is quite different, which, according to their scripture, will prevail only when everyone has become Muslim! Those "many Islamic people" who Bob imagines want peace and believe they can still be true to Islam, are actually thinking in terms of Quranic peace! To that extent, they are absolutely correct.

As a general rule, the Quran has to be read only in its own context and not from any other point of view.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".