Religion of Peace?

From Andrew G. Boston and

By Andrew G. Bostom | 8/20/2007

Religion of Peace?-Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t
By Robert Spencer, Regnery, 2007, 246 pp.

“This past December, 2006, a British radiologist, and the executive director of the Sword Swallowers Association International published a fascinating survey which evaluated, “information on the practices and associated ill-effects of sword swallowing.” The respondent sword swallowers typically required extended daily practice for months or years to appropriately desensitize their gag reflex,…sometimes by repeatedly putting fingers down the throat, but other objects are used including spoons, paint brushes, knitting needles, and plastic tubes before the swallower commonly progresses to a bent wire coat hanger. The performer must then learn to align a sword with the upper esophageal sphincter with the neck hyper-extended.

Not surprisingly, such “desensitization” training does not spare sword swallowers from the predictable hazards of their chosen profession, including serious morbidities — perforations of the pharynx or esophagus and associated neck abscess or aspiration, pneumothorax, pleurisy, pericarditis, and intestinal bleeding, ranging from melena (frankly bloody stools), to blood-transfusion-requiring hematemesis (vomiting blood)-and even death.

Robert Spencer’s sobering new book, Religion of Peace? reveals how the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy in the West — rooted in self-hatred, uncritical, blanket pacifism, and complacency — negates the profound differences between Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilization, obfuscating the existential threat posed by Islam’s enduring, central institution: the jihad. This corrosive mentality is disseminated by the avatars of immoral equivalence, “elite” sword swallowers for jihadism who have foisted their own self-destructive desensitization to this genocidal institution upon a general public, sadly ill-informed about Islamic doctrine and history.

Throughout the first four chapters, Spencer analyzes a spate of books that appeared in 2006 — whose authors were oblivious to reams of daily, concrete evidence, and reason — which warned not about the real global progress of Shari’a (both violently and non-violently imposed), but the supposed imminent threat of Christian theocracy in the United States, and the export overseas of this religious zealotry by a modern “Crusading” military adventurism.

Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy was prototypical of this genre which, by waves of the hand, dismissed obvious foreign and domestic threats of jihad terrorism while ignoring altogether cultural jihadism — the aggressive, if transiently “peaceful” methods of Islamic dawa — and their long term implications for truly theocratic, i.e., Islamic rule, including, within the West. Phillips insists that the post 9/11 incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were merely, “the war whoops of militant Protestantism…,” the apotheosis of a “biblically stirred foreign policy,” willing to use force to achieve its ultimate end: broader Christian missionary activity in the Islamic Middle East, another shameful Crusade.

Spencer eviscerates Phillips’ “analysis” of George Bush’s October 2001 speech (outlining the President’s proposed military response to the cataclysmic attacks of 9/11), which epitomizes the counterfactual, and bizarre, if not frankly paranoid argumentation of the “Christian-ist conspiracy” mongering authors. Despite the fact that Bush had refrained from invoking religious language-in stark contrast to Osama bin Laden-Phillips,

…resorted to claiming that the president used “double coding,” through which he “signaled attentive Bible readers that he shared their private scriptural invocations — using phrases from the revelation of St. John (6:15-17, about the wrath of the lamb) and Isaiah (about evildoers hiding in caves and the lonely paths of the godless).” Never mind that Bush never used the words wrath or lamb, and never mind that bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives actually do hide in caves. Why let the truth get in the way of a great theory?

As Spencer continues, he exposes the full-blown preposterous absurdity of Phillips’ putative “insights”, which, depressingly, enjoy rather broad acceptance, regardless of well-established contradictory facts, including: the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions; the plight of unassuming Afghan Muslim “apostate to Christianity” Abdul Rahman; the ongoing tragic destruction of the ancient Assyrian Christian community in Iraq, accelerated since the US invasion, as perpetrated by Sunni and Shi’ite Arab Muslims, as well as Muslim Kurds, and taking place within a larger overall context of the attrition of all the indigenous Christian communities of the Islamic Middle East oppressed by resurgent jihadism, beginning after World War I, and increased since the culmination of the Western European colonial era, following World War II.

He [Phillips] describes Bush as an “evangelical Christian missionary,” influenced by “heady talk about bringing liberty and freedom to new shores.” But maybe, just maybe, Bush’s real mission was not biblical at all, but an attempt to defend America from a second September 1, and he was seeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the replacing of their tyrannies with democracies as part of this effort. Phillips and his ilk certainly have to stretch to portray Bush’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a Christian missionary enterprise; the constitutions of both countries give a privileged place to Islam, and the Bush administration has taken no special measures to halt the persecution of Christians in post-Saddam Iraq.

…the constitution of the new, post-Taliban Afghani regime stipulates that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Abdul Rahman’s case showed that Islam’s traditional classification of apostasy as a capital crime would be included in this. The prophet Muhammad regarded apostasy from Islam as a supreme evil, and one of the main reasons the punishment is so severe is because apostates were once Muslims but “turn renegade.” Muhammad decreed that no Muslim could be put to death except for murder, unlawful sexual intercourse, and apostasy. He said flatly: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, although there is some disagreement over whether the law applies only to men. Thus it was not at all surprising that the Afghan government, constituted so that no law could be made that contradicted Islamic law, put Abdul Rahman on trial. Yet Western analysts seem to have trouble grasping the import of Rahman’s case…After an international firestorm, Abdul Rahman was released, and asked for asylum in Italy, which was swiftly granted. However, the Islamic law provision in the Afghani constitution remains today. But if this episode made anything clear, it was that the Bush administration had no interest whatsoever in defending the rights of a Christian prisoner in an Islamic state. American officials did nothing, after all, to prevent the approval of the constitution, despite its stipulation about Islamic law. If the American incursion into Afghanistan represented a modern-day Crusade or an exercise in evangelical Christian wish fulfillment, it was a singularly inept one.

Iraq, likewise, the dire predicament of Christians facing jihadist persecution after the fall of Saddam Hussein demonstrated this point. If spreading Christianity was what Bush was after, he was doing a decidedly poor job of it…In Iraq, half the nation’s prewar 700,000 Christians have fled the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein…Christian communities throughout the Middle East that date back to the dawn of Christianity are decreasing so much that they are on the verge of disappearing from the area altogether…Overall the Middle Eastern Christian population has dropped from 20 percent in 1900 to less than 2 percent today.

Spencer completes the first third of his book by highlighting another commonplace immoral equivalence espoused by assorted non-Muslim and Muslim apologists for Islam: comparing Pat Robertson and other Christian evangelical leaders, “despite the fact that they have killed no one and have no organization equivalent to Al Qaeda,” and the handful of abortion clinic bombers, or murderers of physicians who perform abortions, to the legions of mass murdering global jihadists. The author contrasts the unequivocal, powerful denunciations of such isolated attacks on abortion clinics and their personnel, made by all major mainstream Christian denominations and their leaders, to the equivocal, elusive, and vaguely worded statements by Islamic organizations or religious bodies, and their clerical elites-domestic and international-who consistently refuse to condemn by name major Muslim entities responsible for heinous acts of murderous jihad terrorism, including Hamas, Hizbollah, and even Al Qaeda. ”

To read more click here.


2 Responses to Religion of Peace?

  1. eem says:

    Both the author of this article and Robert Spencer dwell on the negative elements among muslims as representing all muslims and Islam. That’s a great way to help promote acceptance of pre-emptive war, stripping away civil rights in the name of saving us from terror, and to add trillions to the federal deficit. 1 million dead Iraqis and yet no muslim blames Christianity or has a blanket hatred for all christians for this wasteful war.

  2. Chris says:

    Thank you for your comments.

    The author of this article and Robert Spencer provide us with the truth. You call all of the murdering of innocent people around the world “negative elements”?

    Check out the website below and tell me more about these “negative elements”.

    Neither the author of this article nor Robert Spencer state that all of the murdering of innocent people around the world by muslims is representative of all muslims. That is completely false.

    We freed the muslims in Iraq from a brutal dictator. What about the millions of muslims brutally murdered by Saddam? What about the millions of muslims brutally murdered by corrupt muslim governments? Where we got it wrong was thinking the Iraqis would take reponsibility for their destiny. So far this has not happened.

    There were Iraqis killed as part of collateral damage as is the case with all wars. As we all know wars are awful and horrid but necessary at times.

    And to say no one blames Christians for the war is completely false. These days people blame Christians for anything they can.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: