The latest episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors deals in part, again, with the issue of ISIS (you can click below to hear our full discussion).
I just read a very interesting article by Sam Harris called “Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon” in which the author argues a few controversial points, among which are (1) the idea that as long as the West is invoking the “true religion” to combat Islam’s false one, we’ll have no choice but to also and forever combat our enemies with missiles as well, and (2) those who deny that ideas like martyrdom, armed jihad, and hatred of infidels are central tenets of the Koran are as misguided as those who would say that the resurrection of Christ is some secondary or tertiary doctrine of Christianity. I would highly recommend the article, it is quite thought-provoking.
For my part, I am loath to trust Harris’s interpretation of the Koran, simply because no atheist I have ever encountered is ever fair with the Bible, so why would they be fair with other holy books?
That said, though, I can totally see how someone would draw a line connecting “extreme” Islam and Christianity, especially to the God of the Old Testament. But as I have said before, in the same way that OT Judaism is, from a Christian standpoint, a religion that is yet unfulfilled or not full-grown, so Islam is truncated and stuck in things like violence, holy war, law, and hatred of one’s enemies.
In short, there’s a reason why Christians don’t behave like ISIS: Jesus. (He was a bit of a game-changer, after all).
I would agree with Harris at least on this much: Any Christian expression of violence in the name of God is sub-Christian, whereas I’m not so sure the same is true when it comes to Islam.
Listen to the full discussion below. . . .
In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.
This seems to be the whole point of his piece, that ideas have consequences (and since Islam is full of frightful ideas, nobody should be surprised and everyone should be on edge). Granted, the aphorism has some pedigree in western thought. But James Hunter offers a helpful take on it:
“…ideas do have consequences in history, yet not because those ideas are inherently truthful or obviously correct but rather because of the way they are embedded in very powerful institutions, networks, interests, and symbols.”
In other words, ideas in the hands of some can have consequences. In even more words, ideas have to go through actual human beings situated in the actual world. Which is to say, it’s a little more complicated than some who want to draw straight lines from ideas to consequences and ignore all the humanity in between seem to want to make it. Harris (and Mahar, btw) are being enlisted by Jihad-Watcher Protestants who have always wanted to cast Islam as a religious bomb waiting to blow. Not only do they seem to understand that these fellows have religion of whatever kind in mind as the problem, they also seem willing to overlook Hunter’s more trenchant analysis as a way to explain why this stuff comes off as a tad alarmist.
It is interesting that even guys on the Left like Harris and Maher refuse to tow the politically-correct party line about Islam being a “religion of peace.” It seems to me that Islam is like medieval Christianity when it comes to its tolerance of outsiders.
If only there were a Muslim pope who could convene an Islamic Vatican 2. . . .
But does anybody recall the Ottoman Empire? Islamists haven’t always been such philistines.