The Real Victims of Islam.

The news is filled with reports of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, India.  We do not yet know what the terrorists’ motives are; they could have to do with Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or any number of other hotspots.  One thing that is known is that the assailants are Muslim.  I believe one of the most effective aspects of Islamic terror is that it causes non-Muslims to hate and despise Muslims.  The actions of the terrrorists are reprehensible and I do not defend them at all.  The fate of their victims are horrendous and tragic and not to be belittled in any way.  However, I believe that the ultimate victims of Islam are often forgotten because it i easier to divide the world in to us and them and because we prefer to hate.

The murdered victims of Islamic terrorism are tragic but they are also dead, Islam can harm them no more.  The real victims of Islam are the people who have to live under it.  Much has been made of the plight of women in strict Islamic countries and rightly so; they are some of the most oppressed people on the planet.  I would like to point out however, that Muslim women in less strict and even western countries and even Muslim men have to live everyday of their lives believing in Islam.

Allah is a very distant god.  He would not even speak directly to the prophet Mohammed but had an angel mediate between them.  Muslim men and women spend their lives attempting to fulfill all the requirements to get into Heaven and escape Hell.  One of these is a visit to Mecca.  The Saudi governement places a strict cap on the number who can go to Mecca each year and hundreds of millions of Muslims will never even have the chance. Even completing the requirement is not gaurentee; those who escape Hell do so by the arbitrary descision of Allah. Even Mohammed said “What Allah will do with me, I know not.“   Think of the phychologcal and spiritual oppression of these teemining millions, these are Islam’s real victims.

    A colleague of mine in the blogging world, Adrian Thysse commented on my last article, The Fifty-First Psalm in English Verse.  His comment brought up some interesting and very important questions facing the world today.  These questions are some of the key battlefields in the so called, culture wars.  I started to respond to Mr. Thysse’s comment with another comment but, it soon became too long and too divergent from the original article.  Mr. Thysse’s original comment appears below in full.

Adrian Thysse
June 30, 2008

“Behold, I in iniquity
Was formed the womb within;
My mother conceived me also,
In guiltiness and sin.

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.Doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith? How do you keep them separate?

The first part is a direct quote from my post.  It is Psalm 51:5, in an English verse translation.  My response to the questions raised by Mr. Thysse is below.  In deciding how to respond, I found that moving in reverse order (of that in which the questions were posed) will work best. 

    How do I keep my faith and my passion for truth separate?  There is an underlying claim in this question and it is that, my faith is not also true.   I fully understand that Mr. Thysse is not a Christian and so, I expect him to believe Christianity to be false.  Also nothing should be taken dogmatically.  The more important an issue is, the more reason there is to test the conclusion.  Certainly world view and metaphysical beliefs are extremely important, and so should be subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.  See my article, Pseudo-Polite Conversation, for more on my views on this.  

The unstated premises (I hope Mr. Thysse will forgive me for making assumptions) for this question are that,

• Christian faith is unreasonable and not supported by reason.
• I am a reasonable person (he says that I have a “passion for truth”) and yet am a Christian.
  
• The first and second premises contradict
  
• Therefore, I am either making a separation between faith and rationality (as Mr Thysse believes) or I am a walking contradiction.

    Now that I have spent two paragraphs expanding a six word question, I will get to answering it.  First I would like to thank Mr. Thysse for implying that I am a reasonable person.  Thanks.  I try my best to be reasonable and your ackowledgment of the fact means that we can conduct a civilized debate.

    Second, I do not keep them separate.  (Hey, a six word response!)  To do so would constitute a contradiction.  I can not love truth during the week and indulge in what I know to be fantasy on Sundays.  That would be literally and in all other ways, insane. 

    So, it appears that I have backed myself into a corner.  Mr. Thysse presented a dilemma, either I make a separation or I live a contradiction.  I have stated that to make a separation would be a contradiction.  So it appears that, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.  I have already stated that I do not make a separation between my faith and my passion for truth.  I’ll now address the other option in the dilemma, namely that I am a walking contradiction.

    This, I do not accept.  I do not believe that a contradiction exists between my faith and my pursuit of truth.  (I suppose, I should be thankful to Mr. Thysse for assuming that I made a separation rather than asking “why are you a walking contradiction?”)  I find Christian faith to best explain the universe we live in.  That is to say, I find Christianity to be reasonable and rational. 

    We must dismiss completely, with the idea that metaphysical questions, (such as, what is ultimate reality, is there a god, what is the meaning of life,  and why is there evil?) are questions of science or that science could answer.  They are not.  These are not the sort of questions that scientists ask; nor are they the sort of questions that science answers.  If we found video footage of the last six billion (or 100 billion) years and could see the beginning of life and all the wars and famines in history, it would not tell us why there is evil, if there is a god, if he is active or passive, or if he is knowable or distant. 

    Science ( and mathematics, physics etc.)  is very useful but, it is limited.  Science can answer many questions but not questions of this sort.  I do not know if Mr. Thysse’s belief that Christianity is unreasonable is based on an adherence to science or not but, it is very common to believe that science is somehow at odds with faith, religion, and even philosophy.  It is not.  It cannot be.  Science being opposed to these things is like English muffins being opposed to purple.  If you believe in English muffins then you cannot believe in purple and the other way around.  It makes now sense at all.  You cannot even conceive of what it means for English muffins to oppose purple.  The same is true of science opposing faith.

    It seems that in the course of answering the question about separation, I have also answered the question, “doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith?”  It does not.  My faith is based on what I believe to be true.  I believe it was Augustine who said that “all truth is God’s truth.”  This is what I believe.  If God exists, and I believe he does, then all honest search for truth whether molecular biology, astronomy, philosophy, or a criminal investigation, is a search for God.  This is true even when the searcher is not conscience of it or does not believe in God. However, when the search is not really about truth but rather about supporting a previously held position, then neither is it a search for God. 

    Now to respond to the first sentence in Mr. Thysse’s comment. 

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.

The burden is only self imposed if it is not true, but that is beside the point and not worth arguing about at the moment.  Mr. Thysse has made a very astute observation that most of the secular world does not recognize or at least, does not admit to recognizing.  Mr. Thysse has recognized the heavy burden.  Yes there is a heavy burden, but Christians do not bear it.  That is the essence of Christianity.  We have sinned, we are living outside of our original nature, we are God’s enemies but God in his love has extended his hand to us, so that we may become His children!  He has taken the burden from us!  We do not bear the burden because Jesus bore it on our behalf.  As Paul said,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 8:1 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

 Or even earlier in that same Psalm,

For your compassion great, blots out
All my iniquity.
Psalm 51:2 

And later,

With perfume do, you sprinkle me,
I shall be cleansed so;
Yes, wash me please, and then I will
Be whiter than new snow!
Psalm 51:7

Or as Jesus Himself said,

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.“ 
Mathew 11:28-30 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

This is Why Christianity is ultimately reasonable and rational.

• It explains where the universe came from, God created it.  This is a question that you must answer no matter what you believe about old Earth creationism, young Earth creationism, intelligent design, evolution, the big bang, panspermia, or any other theory out there.
• It accepts the existence of evil as evil. (as does Islam and some other religions)
• It reconciles men who do evil with God, (Islam does not) who is pure good and has nothing to do with evil. 
  
• This is accomplished through Jesus Christ.  This is the lifting of the burden.

Looking back, I’m glad that I made an article out of this instead of a comment.  I hope this is useful to Mr. Thysse and anyone else out there with similar questions.  I gladly accept comments and criticism especially from Mr. Thysse.  Please don’t hesitate to comment, anyone, this is a debate after all. 

What is the mission of coalition troops in Iraq today?  This is a legitimate question that I would like responses to.  I’m not trying to prove a point, I’m just asking.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was a noble act and a just cause for going to war, even without WMD’s, ties to terrorism, or threats to his neighbors.  Hussein was a cruel dictator and the world is better with him gone.  I also understand the rationale behind staying to ensure fair democratic elections.  It is true that the Al Maliki government is not completely stable, but it is doubtful if it will ever be stable as long as coalition troops are there.  There is still violence in Iraq, but there can be no question that much of it is because of the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil.  The Bathists have for the most part been defeated.  Is it within the scope of the mission for the United States and Britain to prevent a civil war and Iraq?  It looks more and more like that is what they are doing.

This is from, Jihad Watch who in turn got it from, Infidel Bloggers Alliance. I never thought of the Fins as the type to back down from a fight. I always had this idea that they were rugged individualists who prided themselves on their independence. Through 700 years of foreign occupation, they were able to maintain their cultural identity and their language. Twice, they refused to back down to the Soviets and once to the Nazis. Yet today, I read that they have bent to the will of the Islamists. I don’t know what kind of rights are recognized by the Finnish government, but I had assumed that they were basic enough to include freedom of speech. I thought that was a given in the Western world. If it was, then it’s not anymore. The Islamists have accomplished what both the Red Army and the SS failed to do.

Finland sentenced blogger, Seppo Lehto to two years and seven months in prison. His crime? Defamation, inciting ethnic hatred, and inciting religious hatred. Lehto posted a video on YouTube in which he draws a pig named Mohamed popping a squat on the Koran. There is little doubt that Lehto is vile and hateful and I am not defending him, but this got him two years and seven months in a country where the maximum sentence for murder is twelve years! It appears clear to me, that Finland is afraid of the Islamists and is slowing surrendering. When will we see burqas and religious police in Helsinki?

Here is a link to the movie, you can watch it if you want to, but it is offensive. However, what he says about Mohamed being a pedophile is true, if you believe having sex with a nine year old is pedophilia. Citation from al-Hadith. I would love to get responses, especially from Fins, most especially from Muslim Fins.

Iraq never should have been a country.  Its borders are lines drawn in the sand by colonial powers after World War I.  The various peoples have no historic ties to bind them together in neighborly love nor do they have political, religious, or ideological ties.  Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country nominally unified through extreme brutality.

It should be partitioned into at least three smaller countries.  This would allow the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds to govern themselves as they see fit.  The only reason that the country was not partitioned after the ouster of Hussein was that the United States did not want to be accused of nation making by Britain, France, Russia, China, and others.  Make no mistake, the world powers will for the most part jump at any opportunity to criticize the U.S. but that is still the course of action that should have been taken and is possibly what should still happen.

The difficulty now is that the United States claims to have given sovereignty to Baghdad.  Of course any sovereignty Baghdad has is at the pleasure of the US as the US gave it to them and props them up through blood and treasure but, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of Iraqi sovereignty for diplomatic reasons.

A lot has been made of the division of oil wealth and how that is an obstacle to partition.  Call me old fashioned, but Iraq does not share its oil revenue with its neighbors currently, does it?  Does Japan share the revenue it gets from exporting electronics with Korea?  No, of course not.  Why would it?  I see no reason why Sunni Iraq should be expected to share revenue with Shia Iraq or vice versa.  To me this is a non-issue and those that are making a big deal of it are naïve, communal hippies, or attempting to stop progress.

Certainly partitioning Iraq would be of benefit to the average Iraqi but they can hardly be expected to take kindly to a foreign power chopping up their country.  If the US and Britain (etc.) were to completely pull out of Iraq before completely beating all remnant of the various militant groups, then it is very likely that Iraq would divide along sectarian lines anyway.  It may be inevitable; Iraq does not want to be a country.  In the absence of a strong armed dictator or foreign military powers, Iraq may just dissolve.

I am constantly amazed at how often people cherry pick the facts to suit their own arguments.  I expect this from advertisements and unfortunately I have grown accustomed to spin in the news, but I am seeing it more and more from people who I would expect better from.  Many of these people are even arguing for positions I agree with, but do it through bad reasoning.  When you argue from poor reasoning you open yourself up to criticism and discredit the position you were arguing in favor of.  You better serve your position by keeping quiet than by deceptive and poor arguing tactics. 

The blogs are the worst about this.  The more I get into blogging, the more blogs I read and it seems that these otherwise intelligent and ethical people believe that they can misconstrue, misrepresent, misquote, and omit anything that is not supportive of their point.  The most common things to cherry pick from seem to be the Bible, the Constitution, the Quran, and now Me!  Oh well, I suppose that comes with the territory.  I honestly cannot understand how someone gets satisfaction from winning an argument or making a profound point when it is based on faulty reasoning.  It is beyond me.  I am behooved.   One of the most common places to find this fake arguing is under the philosophy tag.  I would like to point out that philosopher means lover of wisdom.  You cannot love wisdom if you do not first love truth. 

Another dishonest tactic that is getting more popular, is to make a statement and then cite some fact as support when the fact in reality has little or nothing to do with the statement made.  I am forced to conclude that many people are so blinded by their convictions that they cannot even defend them properly, so blinded that they can no longer see any logic in contrary positions and thus they, cannot make a logical argument against them.  When people get to this point, facts of little relevance become sound and insurmountable arguments to bolster their own position. 

If you truly believed in whatever position you were arguing for then you should be more than happy to bring all the facts to light as they should reveal the truth in your position.  When you feel that you must filter information then you must have very little faith  in your position.  If that is the case then the best that can be said of you is that you don’t know what you believe and the worst is that you are pushing a position which you believe to be false. 

The purpose of engaging in an argument should be to discover the truth, not to bolster your own ego and not to “win” at all costs.  This is especially true when the argument is one sided, as in a blog post (unless you get comments).

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on what they find attractive.” -Pascal

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” 2 Timothy 4:3 ESV

I am not a Ron Paul hater.  I am pretty close to him on some issues.  He speaks his mind and knows what he believes.  That is more than I can say for most politicians and I respect him for that.  Yesterday however, during the YouTube/CNN dabate he sealed his fate.  When asked about his plan for Iraq, Ron Paul’s answer not only sounded anti-military and anti-American but showed that he doesn’t understand the enemy we face in this war on Islamic terror. 

He said that we should pull our troops out of Iraq.  This alone is not surprising, but then he said that one of the primary reasons for the attacks of September 11th was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and that we should pull out of there as well.  This is where he displayed his ignorance. 

The Islamofascists are waging a holy war.  Ron Paul doesn’t seem to get this.  They truly have faith that what they are doing is the will of Allah and is therefore not only justified but obligatory.  When they say that they are waging jihad it is not just rhetoric, they mean it.  It is not difficult to see why they are fighting, it is not because we have a base in Saudi Arabia, it is because their religion tells them to.

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.”  Surrah (Quran) 8:39 Pickthall*

It is not hard to find, the Quran is in public domain!  If Ron Paul doesn’t understand that they attacked us because we are infidels then he would endanger the nation and the world as president.  I withdraw my support for his candidacy.

*Note: I changed the translation of Quran quotation due to complaints about the accuracy of the previous translation.  Pickthall is the most respected English translation of the Quran to my knowledge.

This is an issue I’ve put quite a bit of thought into and the more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea.  Oil exporting countries have formed a cartel that can set the price of oil with essentially no opposition, it only makes sense to form a cartel of oil importing countries that would be powerful enough to negotiate with OPEC and lower the price of oil.  It seems like a no-brainer.  There is so much to this that I should be writing a book instead of a blog post but this will have to do for now. 

If the major oil importers bound themselves together and were willing the bare the initial and inevitable embargo from OPEC, the rewards that they would reap would be enormous.  Today oil is at nearly $100 a barrel, in 1999 it was around $10 a barrel.  Don’t believe me?  Just imagine what it would do for our economy if oil suddenly dropped to, say $20 a barrel.  That is not an unreasonable figure provided someone like OPIC was negotiating the price for us. 

Here is one example of how something like OPIC could work.  Representatives from the U.S., China, Canada, the E.U., Japan, Australia, and other Oil importing countries meet in Geneva and decide that they will pay $40 a barrel for oil.  The various countries refuse to buy any oil for any more than that.  At this point OPEC is almost certain to react by refusing to sell any oil at all.  Then the game of chicken begins.  It would all depend on who blinks first.  If OPIC could stomach gasoline rations and high prices long enough then OPEC would give in.  If OPEC would not agree to OPIC’s price then at least they might open up to negotiations on the price.  Another possibility is that the OPEC cartel would break.  Saudi Arabia, replete with cash, might be willing to hold out longer than some of the other OPEC members but, as soon as one OPEC country broke and started to sell two things would happen, the price of oil would start to drop thereby giving relief to the OPIC countries and the other OPEC members would begin to follow suit.  The former OPEC countries would have to compete to sell oil on the open market.  OPIC might even be able to shutter the windows.  One thing that makes me think a strategy like this could work is that OPEC does not control all the world’s oil.  This means that during the stand off the OPIC nations would not run completely out of oil. 

One objection that might arise to the idea of OPIC is that it isn’t very capitalistic.  This however, is not the case.  What is more capitalistic than leveraging all the power you have to negotiate a better price for a product?  OPIC would be a great expression of capitalism.  Labor unions and monopolies are both capitalistic in the same way.  The problem with them both is that they could potentially hurt the economy as a whole.  However OPIC would be working to help the economy. 

It is at least food for thought.  We can’t go on like this, especially with so much of the Islamic terrorism being funded by petro-dollars.  If the price of oil does in the next 9 years what it did in the previous 9 years then in 2017 we will be paying close to $1,000 a barrel.  That would be $30 or $40 a gallon at the pump!  Organisation of Petroleum Importing Countries, it has a nice ring to it doesn’t it? 

Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf has in recent weeks started to look more and more like a dictator.  He postponed elections (he wasn’t elected to start with), sacked the Supreme Court and padded it with supporters, placed former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto under house arrest, and rounded up hundreds of political opponents.  He is also a close ally of the United States and the Bush administration.  In 2005 Pakistan was given a three-billion dollar arms deal.  That’s a three-billion dollar gift, not exchange.  Pakistan could not afford to spend three-billion on anything.  I do not know the total amount in military aid the United States has given to Pakistan and Musharraf since September 11th but it is surely a staggering number.  So the solution seems clear in light of Musharraf’s recent shenanigans, turn off the money pipeline.  Without U.S. support Musharraf’s government will fold, or at very least the U.S. will have sent a strong signal and he just might shape up.  There are just two problems with this. 

First and most obvious is the reason Pakistan has been getting the money in the first place, September 11th.  Before 9/11 the U.S. would not sell arms to Pakistan or India because of their nuclear saber rattling.  After September 11th we needed Pakistan’s help in routing out the Taliban on the border with Afghanistan and Musharraf was happy to oblige.  It is worth noting that India has since started to receive U.S. arms as well, in an effort to maintain the balance of power in south Asia.  The Taliban has regrouped since their initial butt-whooping in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.  They are gaining ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Pakistani troops with U.S. dollars are the only thing keeping them from taking over Pakistan or at least a major section of it.  This would give them a base of operations to launch attacks into Afghanistan on U.S. and NATO troops.  It would also give a safe haven to Islamic terrorist with broader goals in mind. 

The second and perhaps even more important issue is the bomb.  Pakistan is a nuclear power.  Pakistan has nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles.  This is not like North Korea, who detonated (or rather, fizzled) a nuclear fire cracker and now claims to be a nuclear power.  Pakistan is armed to the nuclear teeth.  The U.S. (and the rest of the sane world) would much rather have Musharraf, with all his faults in control of those nukes than the Taliban or total anarchy. 

If the Taliban got its hands on those nukes they would almost certainly pass a few off to their Al Qaeda allies.  Another possibility is that they would use them against Pakistan’s mortal enemy and fellow nuclear club member, India.  This presumably would provoke India to respond in kind and the Earth would have her first nuclear war. 

The U.S can not afford not to continue to prop up Musharraf and unfortunately, he knows it.  This is one of the stickiest diplomatic situations since the end of the cold war.  I imagine the diplomatic back channels are replete with offers for Musharraf to retire to mansions in Miami in exchange for  some how securing the nukes and handing power to an elected president.  It should be interesting.

Much has been made of the identity of the god of Christianity and the god of Islam and whether they are the same being.  Many people want to claim that they are the same in hopes that this will foster brotherly feelings, tolerance, and in time peace.  Those who deny the same-god theory tend to be fundamentalist on either side who have little or no desire to associate one faith with the other.  I however contend that the whole controversy is one of semantics and largely meaningless and I intend to demonstrate it below. 

Muslim’s do not worship Jesus.  Christians worship Jesus.  Therefore Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god. 

Christians claim to worship the god of Abraham.  Muslims claim to worship the god of Abraham.  Therefore Christians and Muslims do worship the same god. 

The law of non-contradiction says that a thing can not, be and not be at the same time.  In the above two arguments all the premises are true and the logic is sound; they are both true and valid statements.  Yet they contradict one another.

The reason for this is that the English word god is being used to mean two different things.  Like I said before, it’s semantics.  From an anthropological perspective Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic Abrahamic religions and the god is the same.  From a theological perspective Jehovah shares very few characteristics with Allah.  Additionally, the two faiths are not even remotely compatible to any but the most extreme liberals of either faith.  They are mutually exclusionary.  So they do not worship the same god.  That is the semantical difference in the anthropological definition of god and the theological definition of god. 

Those outside these faiths and liberals within them will continue to claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.  However, liberals and outsiders are not the driving force in any religion or belief system, the fundamentalists are.  Outsiders are by definition outside the faith.  Liberals are by definition far from the heart of the faith.  If it were not so, then they would be fundamentalists.  And no informed fundamentalist Muslim or Christian would claim that they worship theologically the same god.  Muslims do not worship Jesus Christ and Christians do not worship an unknowable god, as Allah is described in the Qur’an.