Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
Part 9 of "Free Speech, The War on Terror and Islam" by Joseph B.H. McMillan:
The Problem Identified; Debate or Debacle; Arabs, Islam and the Nazis; Islam and the Dark Ages; Civilization and Tolerance under Islam; Conservatives "calling it as it is"?; Free Speech and Debate; The Consequences; A Solution?; Footnotes
"A Solution?"
I believe that there is, or perhaps I should say WAS, a possibility of a solution, but it does not lie in tinkering with our delusions.
Trying to contain the proliferation of weapons is not a solution either. As long as devastating weapons exist they will be joined to them who believe they are fighting for a 'cause', and they will be used.
The first step to a solution lies in simply acknowledging that nothing and no one can be immune from critical analysis and debate. Although that sounds simple enough, our thinking is so conditioned today that even this simple task will pose a significant barrier. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, discovered this after 9/11 when he despaired at finding anyone who could "think out of the box." Secretary Rumsfeld should not have been surprised at this. People today 'think' for advancement, thus they must have 'ideas' consistent with their 'career goals'. Schweitzer observed this trend at the turn of the twentieth century: "the man of today has his mind so full of the thought of discipline that he loses the sense of his own individuality and can only see himself as thinking in the spirit of some group or other of his fellows."(76) In today's world, such thinking is a pre-requisite for 'educational progress' from the day a child enters school. But much worse, thinking that infringes any of the liberalist taboos is not just frowned upon but positively persecuted. In modern parlance, a "career breaker".
Assuming that we could summon the intellectual independence and integrity to surmount the first obstacle, we will be faced with a more challenging one.
That challenge lies in free and informed debate. This must not be a debate among so-called religious scholars in some quiet sanctuary where they can all pat themselves on the back at having a good exchange of views where all views are "respected".
We must bring out into broad daylight those verses in the Koran which advocate hatred, death and jihad. Muslims must be challenged to explain them or renounce them.
We must examine historical facts objectively and debate Islamic hatred of Jews and Christians throughout the ages. We must openly and honestly review what happened in 'Palestine' and dispel the myths. Muslims must see, and hopefully participate in, close and critical examination of Islam and its history. In breaking down western delusions about Islam we can only hope to cause some introspection amongst Muslims as well. In short, we in the West must not shy away from recognising that whatever other attributes Islam may have, it does incite hatred and contempt for others born of the spurning of Mohammed as a prophet by the Jews and Christians. Muslims must also face that unpalatable fact.
The objective of such an exercise is not to ridicule Islam, or Muslims, but to ensure that we in the so-called western democracies face the fact that inspiration for such atrocities as 9/11 and the relentless murder of Jews, even in today's 'civilised world', may have it's roots not in some 'injustice' visited upon Muslims, but in Islam itself. Yes, we can also debate perceived injustices, both ways. But we must start with the fundamentals.
If nothing else, at least a positive consequence of such a debate may be the restoration of the definition of tolerance to its rightful meaning, a measure of a permissible deviation from a norm, and not a blind dictate from a Liberal elite that every view, religion, set of principles or lifestyles is equally valid, and deserving of equal, uncritical respect. That is not tolerance. That is an abdication, not only of our right to think and speak freely, but of our duty to do so.
Hopefully, we will begin to recognise that 'tolerance' is not a principle or value in itself. It is a measure of the latitude that is permissible from a 'norm'. More tolerance is not self-evidently good, and less bad. 'Tolerance' extended to everything is nihilism.
Applying tolerance, or intolerance, necessarily presupposes a set of values and principles from which deviation is permissible. What constitutes those values and principles must be an essential part of the debate, and in that respect, the more inflexible moral values espoused by Islam could be a refreshing counter-balance to the moral relativism and nihilism into which Western 'philosophy' has descended.
Western 'civilisation' has constructed an alarming, morally vacuous 'philosophy' centred on this distorted concept of 'tolerance'. Its logic is so primitive that it fails to recognise that before the concept is applied it requires a norm. More dangerously, to compensate for this fundamental flaw in logic, it has sought to sweep away, by ridicule, those norms on which our present civilisation was built. Those Judeo-Christian norms have been deemed to offend against 'tolerance'. That is akin to an engineer, being frustrated that the structural pillars of his construction do not have the tolerance to withstand every eventuality, simply demolishes them.
Yet that is precisely what the new western 'philosophy of tolerance' is doing to western civilisation. The pillars on which it has been constructed have been gnawed at to the point of collapse. As the likes of bin Laden and his Islamic masters well understand, a little shove is all that is needed to bring the whole edifice crashing down. And better for him, and worse for us, termites from within and without are daily weakening the structure further.
So the debate on Islam also requires, of necessity, reflection and debate on what exactly 'western civilisation' is. If we do not know ourselves, how can we begin to understand others. And if we insist that the determining 'principle' of 'western philosophy' must rest on this meaningless concept of 'tolerance', we cannot hope to challenge a 'philosophy' which proclaims itself to be the actual 'word of God' from which deviation will not be tolerated. Such a response will enhance the attraction of a unambiguous set of principles which define every aspect of life and originates "outside the world and [is] endowed with final authority."(77) Ironically, those who advocate this 'philosophy of tolerance' are ushering in a 'philosophy' which, once sufficiently entrenched, will not tolerate dissent, will not tolerate 'equality', will not tolerate even the very existence of certain peoples, and will certainly not tolerate other religions or philosophies.
The debate, then, will present an intellectual challenge demanding a mental determination that is in short supply. Even in Schweitzer's day, the problem was clearly entrenched: "He [man] does not want to think, and seeks not self-improvement, but entertainment, moreover, which makes least demand upon his spiritual faculties."(78)
Yet we are incapable of recognising even this simple fact. We were comforted after 9/11 when we were told that some of the hijackers visited establishments of ill-repute before engaging in their murderous enterprise. We console ourselves that even these vile people found solace in a measure of carnal indulgence before taking leave of this world. But we delude ourselves. I suspect that they were not seeking solace; they were reinforcing their resolve that what they were about to do could not be wrong if inflicted on a people so decadent.
No doubt I will be ridiculed for such a 'simplistic' view to resolving problems. But we should remember that nothing in this world can be 'fixed' until we know first how it works. Again, as Schweitzer noted: "Whatever is deep is also simple, and can be reproduced as such, if only its relationship to the whole of reality is preserved."(79)
Messrs Frum and Perle do actually acknowledge that "we do have it in our power, though, to encourage a reassessment of [Islamic values and interests] - and to promote more enlightened versions of those values than those that seem to predominate now."(80) "So we must be on the lookout for ways to change the realities of the people now in the grip of extremist Islam."(81)
As I have outlined, I believe we must do much more. We must confront the issue head on. We must examine Islam for what it is and debate it. We must jettison silly concepts of tolerance and establish values and principles rooted in logical thought and historical inheritance. We must measure up Islamic values against such values. If they are not consistent, Islam must defend itself. It must explain why we should accommodate values that offend against generally accepted norms of civilised behaviour. And we must expose 'intractable problems', such as the Middle East conflict, to honest scrutiny of historical facts and religious doctrine. Nothing and nobody can have immunity from the process: the stakes are too high.
I do not delude myself, however, that debate will, with certainty, resolve the hostility directed towards us. If it does, it would have been worthwhile. If it doesn't, it will at least have had the effect of defining a set of values and principles which "introspection reveals …. to be just."(82) Hopefully, it will also have dispelled the delusions and appeasement that have made us vulnerable. It will have prepared us to take the difficult decisions that will be required if Islam insists that its holy mission cannot be abandoned. If Islam is in fact a "peaceful and tolerant religion" as claimed, it has nothing to fear from such a debate, and everything to gain. But we must be ever vigilant that "war is deception."
If, however, Islam responds with hostility, then we must be prepared for direct confrontation. We must follow up and reinforce our debate with an insistence that there be equality of treatment of people between all countries.
If Muslims want the freedoms accorded them in Western democracies, they must accord all other religions and peoples the same freedoms in their own countries. And those freedoms must be extended to Jews.. Countries that deny such rights should be told that their citizens will be similarly denied in Western countries.
Mosques, schools and other institutions preaching hatred and jihad must simply be closed down. Those advocating murder and persecution must be prosecuted, jailed or deported.
Palestinians should be told bluntly that terror will not be tolerated. Countries supporting terror (including Palestinian terror), however indirectly, should be told that they will be visited with retaliation, and must be visited with retaliation.
We must not recoil from contemplating a clash of civilisations; a war between the West and Islam. Neither should we recoil from contemplating 'total war'. In Nazi Germany and Japan during the Second World War, ideologies became so deeply rooted that only absolute defeat could exterminate them. We must consider to what extent we are prepared to defend ourselves. We must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to see thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of our young men and woman die or be disfigured. We must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to say, as Bomber Harris did in the Second World War: "I would not regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier."(83) We must ask ourselves whether, in the last analysis, we are prepared to support the thinking behind President Truman's decision to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to minimize American, and Japanese, casualties.
Our adversaries should know before they escalate hostilities, or refuse informed debate, that, as Admiral Yamamoto observed after Pearl Harbor: "We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve".
Our adversaries will no doubt seek to disrupt and harm our way of life in many ways from oil boycotts to persecution of our citizens and attacks on those who share our way of life. We should be prepared to draw a line and resolve that such actions would be acts of war to which we shall respond, without hesitation, to protect our interests.
We must shed the delusion that all peoples are basically decent given the chance, but yet give the chance.
If that chance is not taken, then we must ask ourselves whether we want to see our children exposed to, subscribe to, or be subjected to, a religion from which human beings can derive such hatred that they strap explosives to themselves to kill innocent men, woman and children, or fly aircraft into buildings full of fellow human beings.
And we must not allow ourselves to be misled into believing that such actions do not find their inspiration in the verses of the Koran, or are the result of some 'injustice' on our part. Protestations from Muslims, or our 'leaders' advised by Muslims, that Islam is a peaceful religion that does not condone such actions, is not enough. We must demand the facts, we must examine the facts, and we must insist that we debate the facts. We must look at Islam in the context of those countries today that 'practice' Islam.
Unless we not only allow, but encourage, public debate on Islam, or Islam undergoes its own ‘reformation’, the end of the affair will be disaster. We must prepare ourselves for that possibility.
Regrettably, today we do not have a Churchillian “voice crying in the wilderness”. All we have is a sea of Chamberlains all clamouring to appease more than the next, crippled by delusion and a vacuous 'philosophy of tolerance'. I fear that most of the people of the western world, especially in Europe, no longer possess what Churchill called the "moral health and martial vigour" to address the problem, never mind solve it.
Nevertheless, in the highly improbable event of such a debate taking place, perhaps a provocative quote from Albert Schweitzer would be a good beginning.
I would offer up for debate this one from his work Civilization and Ethics: Islam shows “itself to be in all points unoriginal and decadent”.(84)
But, alas, I fear the vast majority in the West, excluding I suspect a significant majority in the United States, simply do not know themselves, let alone the enemy.
So I believe the impasse will ultimately be resolved by war, not debate!
And we have already had a foretaste of the savagery to which our enemies are willing to descend in pursuit of their objectives. They do not operate under rules of war prescribed by man. Instruments such as the Geneva Conventions simply have no application in their conduct of war. Acts of "perfidy" (such as feigning intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender; feigning incapacitation by wounds; feigning civilian on non-combatant status), and denial of "quarter" (not taking prisoners), are not seen as war crimes (85). Rather, they are seen as opportunities for deception and, as Mohammed said, "war is deception".
Islamic rules of war are prescribed by a higher authority, and following those rules is rewarded in "heaven". Surah [chapter] 5, verse 36 of the Koran sets out the basic rules of engagement: "The punishment of those who wage war against God And His Apostles, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution [beheading under Islamic law], or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land: That is their disgrace In this world, and A heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." Verse 36 makes clear that execution, crucifixion and mutilation are visited upon prisoners: "Except for those who repent Before they fall Into your power." [my emphasis]
Muslims are also exhorted to fight with their goods and persons in God's cause: "Go ye forth, (whether equipped) Lightly or heavily, and strive And struggle, with your goods And your persons, in the Cause of God. That is best For you, if ye (but) knew it." (86) Anyone refuting that such verses do not call for, and justify, suicide attacks are simply indulging in linguistic gymnastics. They delude themselves.
The chasm between western 'civilization', even under its present 'ideology of tolerance', and Islamic 'civilization', is so enormous that it would be difficult to bridge even with the best on intentions on both sides. But when we compound the problem by deluding ourselves as to the basic issues and prohibiting debate on those issues, the chasm widens. Add to that Islamic response to criticism, execution, and the chasm becomes unbridgeable. History teaches us that such differences in values and culture are only resolved by armed conflict. And we in the west had better prepare ourselves for conflict in which our notions of "humanity and fair play" have no application.
1 Gichin Funakoshi, Karate-Dó Kyóhan, Kodansha International, First Edition, p 248
2 Ibid, p 247
3 Declaration of Arbroath
4 Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, JKAP Publications USA, p 144 citing Stillman, Jews, p17 and ref's there
5 The Second World War, Volume One, The Gathering Storm, p 348.
6 Dear Americans, edited by Ralph E Weber & Ralph A Weber, published by Doubleday, p 110
7 Gichin Funakoshi, ibid, p 248
8 The Sunday Express 4 January 2004
9 Ibid, 11 January 2004
10 www.britain.org.my/news/us_attack/blair_to_muslim_media.htm
11 Albert Schweitzer, The Decay and The Restoration of Civilization, Second Edition, page 31.
12 Ibid, p 31 - 32
13 Ibid, p 30.
14 Ibid, p 27
15 Joan Peters, ibid p439
16 Ibid, p 442
17 Ibid, p 363
18 Ibid, p 435
19 Ibid, p 437
20 Ibid, p 34
21 Ibid, p 38
22 Koran 9:29. (All references to the Koran are to the Text, Translation and Commentary by A Yusif Ali published by Amana Corp. First Edition., by reference to Surah [paragraph] number followed by Verse number)
23 Joan Peters, ibid p 35
24 Ibid, p 222
25 Ibid, p 239
26 Ibid, p 344
27 Ibid, Chapter 8 and esp p's 168ff and p 245
28 Ibid, p324
29 Ibid, Chapter 14
30 Ibid, p 335
31 Ibid, p 335
32 Ibid, p 333-334
33 Ibid, p 366
34 Ibid, p 366ff
35 Ibid, p 383 citing Wasserstein, Britain, p 248
36 Ibid, p 386
37 www.britain.org.my/news/us_attack/blair_to_muslim_media.htm
37a Joan Peters ibid, p143 Citing Guillaume, Islam p23
38 Ibid p 144 and citations there
39 Koran 33:26-32 (All references to the Koran are to the Text, Translation and Commentary by A Yusif Ali published by Amana Corp. First Edition., by reference to Surah [paragraph] number followed by Verse number)
40 For the verses added after Mohammed's rejection by Jews and Christians, see Joan Peters page 469 note 9
41 Koran 5:85
42 Ibid 2:65 – and cf 7:166; the note to 2:65 suggests that a better translation may be “be as apes”, and that this punishment would not be solely for breaching the Sabbath, but for the Jews “contumacious defiance of the Law”
43 Ibid 2:90
44 Ibid 2:96
45 Ibid 3;181
46 Ibid 4:46
47 Ibid 4:157
48 Ibid 5:19
49 Ibid 5:76
50 Ibid 9:30
51 Ibid 9:29
52 Ibid 3:151
53 Ibid 2:75
54 Ibid C26
55 Joan Peters, ibid, p 38
56 Ibid, p 39
57 Ibid, p 46
58 Ibid, p 50 – citing Chouraqui, Between East and West at p 51]
59 Ibid, p 58
60 Ibid, p 67, citing Hirschberg, History at p 126, and Chouraqui, Between East and West at p 52
61 Ibid, p 150
62 Ibid, p150, citing Hogarth, “Arabs and Turks,” The Arab Bulletin, #48
63 Ibid, p 150, quoting Professor Bernard Lewis, The Arabs, p 14
64 David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil, Random House, p 42
65 Ibid, p 42
66 Joan Peters, ibid, p 294
67 Ibid, p 210, citing Ernest Main, Palestine at the Crossroads (1937) at p267
68 Ibid, p 59, citing Littman, Muslim Rule, p 67
69 David Frum and Richard Perle, ibid, p 48
70 Koran 13:41 - 42 cf 14:48 and 8:39 for establishment of Islam world-wide.
71 Ecclesiastes 1:2
72 Ibid 3:21
73 Ibid 3:11
74 Ibid, 3:13
75 Mathew 22.21
76 Albert Schweitzer, The Decay and The Restoration of Civilization, ibid p 28
77 Albert Schweitzer, Civilisation and Ethics, Third Edition, p 28
78 Albert Schweitzer, The Decay and The Restoration of Civilization, ibid, p 19
79 Albert Schweitzer, Ibid, p 11
80 David Frum and Richard Perle, ibid p152
81 Ibid p 157
82 Gichin Funakoshi, ibid p 247
83 Arthur Harris, head of British Bomber Command, letter to deputy Chief of Air Staff, 29 March 1945, in support of the continued strategic bombing of German cities
84 Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics, ibid, p 27
85 Articles 37 and 40 respectively of Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
86 Koran 9; 41. See also 9;20 and 38 to 40.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2002 - 2007 All Rights Reserved
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007