More reflection is needed
Reader comment on item: Winning the Propaganda War [versus Radical Islam]

Submitted by John Rampton (United States), Jan 6, 2006 at 18:27

In understanding the Muslim definition of truth in media, we might find ourselves butting heads as to how exactly they define it. Honesty in the Middle East seems to be; from what I have observed, defined more by one's submission to Allah as an honest Muslim, rather than the aptness of one to tell what one thinks is objectively accurate. Seeing as how Muslims regard the Koran as the direct word of Allah, and not subject to challenge or question, there seems to be very little; if any, search for what one can trust, or; more accurately put, what one can agree with. The search for truth is largely bound and gagged in a culture that demands complete genuflection, as is the mentality in the search for your beliefs.

When you have a culture that communicates every greeting, solicitation, and request with "In 'Shah Allah" somewhere in it, that is complete submission. You're not even allowed to have a good day, unless specifically willed by the creator. The syllogism here is that you're not allowed to worry about anything in your life (unless people can't see you worry about it). Charity and alms to the poor is hardly an outreach of any kind over there, but more so an insult. It is only given so you don't have to watch someone starve. It is emotionally hard to witness it. But it is rarely; if ever at all, the intention of the giver to improve the situation of someone who begs. That would interfere with the will of Allah.

Westerners can get very cynical when it comes to religion, and it even reflects in their inability to trust authority, but Muslims regard religion as more important than anything. Very little differentiation is observed in Muslim religious history, as a very important religious and political leader must be martyred in order for a new one to form, it seems. Questioning Allah, or even the interpretation of the Koran is not tollerated within the schools of thought, it would seem to me. Breaking away, and becoming a Christian is less unthinkable than questioning the Koran's interpretation by one's native school of thought.

This religious totalitarianism is more so evident now than ever before, as the fractured Middle Eastern area has fostered dicatatorships that are "the will of Allah". (Perhaps Al Qaeda's international appeal to a Muslim is the fact that most of these political boundaries are overcome.) For most, even dictatorship is considered a largely respected legitimacy, if you can get some clerics to back you (I wonder how they might arrange that), but for the most part, Muslims can almost define their nationalism by their religion. Otherwise; it would seem to me, they are completely devoid of any nationalism whatsoever, and have a hard time seeing any nationalism beyond religious boundaries.

Almost in the spirit of the hardy-Wineberg theory, it may seem that when populations of Muslims are cut off, they may evolve their own interpretations of what the Koran really means, as this seems to be about the only opportunity to deviate without severe repricussion. Apparently, human beings have very little worth in day-to-day living, unless they are someone important. If you are not a dictator; or even related to one, your position is precarious; more so if you are Christian or Jewish, but even Muslims do not deviate far from their place in what is by most standards a very strict caste system. This is not something that is written, but understood, it seems. Deviating from it is considered a challenge to Allah.

It is interesting to note that after all that Marxism failed to do in the way of totalitarian control, Islam seems to do seamlessly; almost effortlessly. Perhaps the reason behind this alliance between Communists and Islamofascists would be more based on utility than convenience. Mr. Pipes, you mentioned this thing about "Free Radio". It may be that the only way you're ever going to reach out to Islam with "Free Radio" is to put out an alternative that speaks to a muslim in the language and context of that muslim's religion, and not in the language and context of the truth. Such would be unthinkable; hypocritical, even blasphemous, sorta like how they might treat someone who challenges interpretation of the Koran.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.