"Peace" - a question of definition

Submitted by CC.Courington (United States), Aug 9, 2006 at 15:53

" If one needed further proof that talking incessantly about "peace" is no guide to intentions, this is it."

I live not far from Seattle, and the thoroughly postmodernist Seattle Sheep are absolutely clueless about the etiology of violence such as this.

Certainly, the fact that he has been taught hatred of the infidel since infancy has left an indelible imprint on his mind. The learning one does in childhood is that which tends to "stick" best, and becomes very difficult to change after the impressive reorganization of the brain during puberty.

Islam certainly teaches the destruction of all things infidel, and to them, "peace" is not defined as "absence of conflict," but rather, "absence of the failure to accept Islam."

Another profound difference between Islam and the Enlightenment principles upon which the United States was designed is between our moral codes - and this difference makes ALL the difference.

A moral code is a set of values chosen to guide our thinking and behavior. At the core of every moral code there is always one supremely important value by which all others are measured. Among us, that supremely important "standard of the good" is "life as appropriate to the nature of a human being."

What this means is that every thought or action which tends to support human life is considered "good," while any action that tends to threaten it is considered "bad."

In Islam, the "standard of the good" is entirely different; its core value, the value that it holds as supremely important, is "the spread of Islam."

What this means is that every thought or action which tends to support the spread of Islam is "good," while any action that tends to oppose it is considered "bad."

It is for this reason that a terrorist, be he an individual like Haq who forces his way into a Jewish community center and shoots defenseless women, killing one, or others who kill hundreds of children in a Russian school, or blow up shoppers in a marketplace, or thousands of workers in the Twin Towers, or tens of commuters on a subway, can look at himself in the mirror and smile; according to his core value, his "standard of the good," his moral code, murder and mayhem in support of the spread of Islam is "good."

This difference in moral codes is what the "deer in the headlights" crowd like Fox's John Kasich just can't seem to grasp. A few days ago, he leaned into the camera, his eyes opened wide with horror, and asked, "How can a RELIGION do something like that?"

Well, John, not all moral codes are the same.

Until and unless we all recognize this difference, we will continue to fail to identify the problem; in the absence of accurate identification, we will be unable to solve the problem.

Reality always wins in the end.

---

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".