Author: Jamie Glazov
Publication: FrontPageMagazine.com
Date: May 23, 2002
URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/2002/glazov05-23-02.htm
Why Islam Can't Join the Modern
World, triggered quite a large volume of angry protests from Muslims in
FrontPage's Go Postal forum and in my e-mail inbox.
My argument was simply what common
sense and empirical realities tell us: Islam regulates every realm
of its believers' lives and negates individualism. Consequently Islam is
mutually exclusive with free will and, therefore, with a pluralistic and
liberal society. This is precisely why it has not, and cannot, join the
modern world.
I don't understand what's so complicated
about this.
Most of my Muslim critics respond
by emphasizing one boring, repetitive and pathetic theme: that the Islam
I am criticizing (the one that exists) is not the real Islam. The real
Islam, I am told, will give freedom and be very modern. It's just that
this real Islam is nowhere to be seen yet.
Right.
Here we have the traditional and
dishonest excuse of tyranny lovers: that the worldly incarnations of their
ideas should never be blamed on the ideas themselves. This asininity has
always been the favorite ploy of socialists. Whenever you confront a Leftist
about the genocide that the socialist idea has spawned (i.e. Stalin, Mao,
Pol Pot etc.), the response is always that the true socialism hasn't been
tried yet. That's because, the Leftist explains, the reality of the Marxisms
that liquidated 100 million lives in the 20th century have nothing to do
with the ideas that gave them birth.
But we didn't need the socialist
mass murders of the 20th century to confirm that the socialist idea is,
in and of itself, a prescription for genocide. You simply can't have a
society that forbids private property and political dissent and not have
state terror.
It's the same with Islam. You can't
have a religion that mandates the thwarting of free will and then not have
state totalitarianism, social neuroses, and cultural impotence.
The Muslims with whom I debate always
assert that the real Islam can join the modern world, but in the same breath
they condemn everything about the modern world and boast how Islam is not
a part of it. Therefore, even though they deny that a place like Iran is
the real Islam, the real Islam they describe always ends up sounding like
a carbon copy of the existing Islam that they try to separate themselves
from.
The typical Muslim tells me that
I am wrong about Islam because it does allow free will. So then I inquire
whether, in the real Islam, a woman will have the free choice to drink
alcohol, go dirty dancing at a bar, pick up a guy and take him home. This
always crystallizes the issue quite quickly. The Muslim usually gets very
upset and responds, with much anger, about how this behavior is very wrong,
how decadent the West is, and how Islam simply does not allow such immorality.
He then articulates his moral indignation about my opposition to "eliminating"
moral depravity.
Right, and my point exactly.
Whenever someone starts talking
about "eliminating" the universal tragedies, ills, and evils in our human
condition, and begins to imply that the "solutions" to them lie in state
governments or religious theocracies, I get shivers of dread up my spine.
Because that's when I know that pure and unadulterated evil is itching
to take on living form.
I don't necessarily support the
lifestyle of the hypothetical woman that I raise in my question. I understand
the social ills that her potential lifestyle engenders in our liberal society.
But I am much more frightened of the attempt of an external authority to
prevent that woman from exercising her own moral and social choices. Anyone
who understands anything about the notion and reality of original sin,
and is aware of the nightmares that the experiments with social utopia
have spawned, knows that the attempt to annihilate human ills by force
always spawns much greater and darker demons.
Thus, the typical Muslim who chastises
me about our Western society's problems (i.e. unwanted teenage pregnancies)
always scares me, because the assumption on which his chastisement is made
implies that something can be done about it - without a negative trade-off.
But the human condition teaches us that the capacity for evil exists in
all realms, and that while unwanted teenage pregnancies are obviously a
tragic reflection of the moral decay of our liberal democratic society,
the "remedy" to eliminate this problem is laden with much more precarious
danger.
What I am saying is that if we want
to have a society where young teenage girls are dissuaded from having reckless
sex and getting pregnant, we must try to do so by fighting for the increase
of moral values in our society. And I believe in fighting for those values.
But the state and religious institutions
must stay out of this realm in the context of enforcing laws that will
negate free will and punish transgressors. The choices that young women
make, and that all humans make, about their own private ethical and social
behavior must ultimately be made by them.
Muslims disagree with this. And
no wonder that when they boast about how the real Islam will rectify a
problem like pre-marital sex, the images of burqas, female genital mutilation,
public stonings and beheadings, forced marriages, and honor killings pass
through my mind.
The problem here, therefore, is
that Islam is inherently oppressive and violent. Yes, I know about all
of those verses here and there in the Koran that talk about peace and love.
Very heart warming indeed.
But the problem is that Islam forbids
the separation of Church and State (Surah 2:193), as well as the right
of dissent (Surah 4:59). And that is what Sharia Law, the religious law
of Islam, holds in place. It makes no distinction between spiritual and
temporal life. In other words, it covers not only ritual, but every aspect
of life. In so doing, it makes sure to dish out severe punishments for
any transgression of the rules.
It is obvious, therefore, that the
very notion of Islam allowing democracy is simply ludicrous. If this occurred,
then a majority of people might just decide that women don't need to wear
veils and that starting an official opposition party to the established
Islamic structure is a good idea.
In these circumstances, how long
do you think Islam would remain Islam?
All of these realities make it clear
why, in their efforts to root out "sin," and to control male-female sex
by putting women out of sight and out of touch, Islamic societies engender
a much darker demon. For example, while Islam might greatly reduce the
number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, its demonization and seclusion
of women not only inflicts mass terror, but has also given birth to a widespread
phenomenon of the sexual abuse of young boys by adult males. This reality
is perfectly reflected in Afghanistan, where the Taliban's extreme restrictions
on male-female relations have yielded a widespread prevalence of the sexual
exploitation and abuse of young boys.
But Muslims cannot reflect on this
reality honestly, because then they would have to confront the reality
that Islam and women's rights are mutually exclusive.
And they would have to reconcile
themselves with the fact that the Taliban was not an aberration of Islam,
but the logical extension of it.
Thus, it becomes obvious why my
recent column upset many Muslims. By the tone and substance of their responses,
it is easily discernable that they long for all of us to be in the real
Islam. That way, they wouldn't have to read what I wrote, because I wouldn't
be allowed to publish what I think.
When my Muslim critics rail against
me, I always can't help from observing that the only reason they can e-mail
me and write letters to the editor is because they are protected from the
despotism of their own religion by the blessings of living in a free society.
If Islam took over where they live, these individuals would not be able
to engage in their free expression without fearing that, if their words
were construed as saying something un-Islamic, they would suffer severe
harm to their physical health.
Paradoxically, therefore, the only
hope there is for Islam, if there is any hope at all, exists in the Western
Muslims who are protected from the laws of their own religion. That's because
the only place where Muslims can work to reform Islam without a threat
of having their heads chopped off is in the societies that infidels built.
But the most important question
remains: can a reformed Islam even remain Islamic?
The point is that the real Islam
is not, and will never be, a place of freedom and peace. If it will be,
it will not be Islam, because it will have to reject its Sharia Law, its
religious police, and its own Prophet - whose main accomplishments and
messages were rooted in violence and military conquest.
My critics reprimand me for not
understanding anything about the real Islam.
Sorry, I understand it all too well.
And when I make the statement: "will
the real Islam please stand up" I am obviously being facetious.
Because it already has.
(Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History
with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He is the author of 15 Tips on How
to be a Good Leftist and of Canadian Policy Toward Khruschev's Soviet Union
(McGill-Queens University Press, 2002). Born in the U.S.S.R., Jamie is
the son of prominent Soviet dissidents, and now resides in Vancouver, Canada.
He writes the Dr. Progressive advice column for angst-ridden leftists at
EnterStageRight.com. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.)
