||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sully disagrees with the suggestion that Qur'an desecration, or at least Qur'an opposition, is our way out of this mess. He thinks that winning that way will be pyrrhic (which he misspelled), alluding to the Epirote general who beat the Roman Republic but at the cost of his army.
He then printed an email on that topic, saying that if we hold our values against those of the Jihad in public, then our values will win. An example would be the Nuremberg trials, in which Nazism was discredited. (Read the whole thing.)
What Sully hasn't noted yet is that whatever Qur'ans were desecrated - and there were few enough of those - this was not done by approval of Rumsfeld (as most of us expected). He also fails to note that Newsweek really does desecrate holy symbols as a matter of course - if the symbols are holy to American patriots. It just happens that they do this behind our backs to America's allies for their own profit. But all this is by the way.
The point is that we should be opposing Islam, but we don't dare. And as a corollary this is why Bush has chosen the way of Guantanamo over the way of Nuremberg.
Nazis could be tried against the standards of European morality, even of German morality as of 1850 or so. Showing the Germans the misdeeds of the Nazis served to shame the Germans.
Islamists cannot be tried against the standards of the West, because Islamists don't accept those standards. From Allah's perspective, America and Europe are full of unbelievers fit only to pay poll tax (jizya).
Islam could be tried against secular standards. Or, Islam could be tried against the standards of the Torah and Gospel. Against the former, Bush is a Christian who doesn't believe in secular standards either; and against the latter, it would end in a match over whose holy texts are more corrupted and therefore the match would end up with the secularists anyway.
Islamists can be tried against Islamic standards. But Islamists will have hadith, Qur'an, and the example (sira) of the Prophet behind them. If the Prophet went out with a sword and subjugated his enemies, why cannot Osama Bin Laden? The arguments will degenerate into quibbles over methods and over targets. Well, maybe not American office workers; but certainly Israeli soldiers - or potential Israeli soldiers - or American supporters of Israel - or George Bush - or a convention of Bush voters. And maybe American office workers if they are contributing to the American war effort, or its economy.
There is no way out as long as people take the Qur'an seriously.
A Nuremberg for Islamists would have to hold up Islamist beliefs to ridicule - and ultimately Islamic beliefs as mainstream Muslims portray them. (The mutazils would not be offended but mutazils are less than 10% of Islam.) And since Christianity's theology is even more incoherent than Islam's, with a holy book that has been being debunked for centuries rather than for decades; no Christian nation will be able to do this, and certainly not Bush's nation.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved