69 million page views

Violence; Just How "Forbidden" Is It?

Reader comment on item: The Clash to End All Clashes?

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Feb 8, 2006 at 04:08


The following is from a comment I just wrote to one of the authors who contributed to the inspiration I express here:

"...something just struck me, as I was reading it. Islam claims that "violence" is "forbidden." O.k., that's fine, except they never answer the question that should be on all our minds. "How forbidden is it?"

So, if we don't ask, and they aren't forthcoming with the information, is there any way we can infer what the response should be? I think so. A simple comparitive analysis of the offense with the relative severity of the punishment should give us a ball-park estimate.

Now, we know they chop of hands for theft, and heads for...whatever, and stone women for even suspicion of infidelity, and kill daughters who "dishonor" the family, etc., etc., etc. So, we can be pretty sure that if something is "forbidden" in Islam, it will cary a pretty stiff penelty, right? So, what's the penelty for burning down a diplomatic embassy? ...or for murdering a citizen of the country one is offended by, or a cleric of the religion of the majority of the citizens of that country even if he's from another country?

(crickets chirping....)

zilch? zip? nada?

Oh, wait, I found it. The country they are angry with must appologize to the barbarians. Whoa, that's heavy stuff. I guess they really do mean buisness. Those rioters are gonna wish they got a limb severed or something, rather than be faced with such strict justice.

But, seriously, I think that effectively puts the lie to their claims of how "forbidden" such mishchief and mayhem are, don't you?"
(In response to: http://www.americandaily.com/article/11744 )

Also, refuting the idea of a, "clash of civilizations," though from a different angle, is the following:

"No one is saying for a moment that Muslims are violent [hyperbole alert]. Most Muslims live lives like you and me, devoted to their families and attempting to impart proper values to their children.
But what we are saying is that the collective entity of Islam as represented by those who consistently speak in its name or take to the streets to fight its battles, are violent, and they are the new Islam."
"The real story is the question why all these peace-loving Muslims whom I meet all the time – good, God-fearing people have not risen in even greater protest to declare that this disgusting response in the name of Islam is the true desecration of a great faith."

Or, could it be that these are good and decent people by nature, in spite of the teachings of their "noble" religion, rather than because of it? If Judaism taught anything but what Rabbi Boteach said about violence, that it is only justified as a last resort and then only in self defense, I would hope I would be having serious doubts about the validity of my religion. I sometimes wonder how many of them are.

Perhaps it's just that all those silent Muslims really ARE a tolerant bunch, ...just a little TOO tolerant, though, I think. And it doesn't help that all the spokespeople who defend Islam tend to minimize the terror, or blame it on the victims, or only oppose it because it is "harmful to Islam," and not because they actually see it as truly profoundly and fundamentally wrong.

There is way too much PR pandering to the nobility of Islam, given it's history and the dysfunctionality of the nations that are the fruit of it's "wisdom." Even it's nostalgia is revisionist history.

Finally, I find the perspective of Clifford May, in the same article that Dr. Pipes' piece appears, not stated often enough; (I first heard it from Sha'i ben-Tekoa about 5 years ago on his "www.deprogramprogram.com").

"It is not a "clash of civilizations" that is taking place. It is a clash between civilization and barbarism — which currently expresses itself most forcefully and lethally as Militant Islamism.
Civilized people — whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew — do not respond to an offense by torching embassies, stoning churches, and calling for offenders to be beheaded."

Right! And also, a seemingly much larger percentage of us don't tolerate, defend or praise those among us who do, compared to Islam. And at least their condemnation is a matter of record, if not universally excepted.

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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)