A Small Illustration of the Dilemma Facing Islam

A Small Illustration of the Dilemma Facing Islam

A lot of people in the West have difficulty understanding the attraction of ISIS.  Recently a very good article in The Atlantic sheds a great deal of light on this.  It is must read for anyone interested in understanding the mind set of ISIS.  I thought I would illustrate the dilemma facing Islam by relating a story that happened to me which in and of itself has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

A few years ago, my church, the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church and I got into conflict.  One of our schools decided to ban Harry Potter.  They went further and organized information nights for parents to educate them about the evils of Harry Potter.  I was disgusted enough by this behavior to write a letter to the editor in a major newspaper which was published and generated a good deal of comment.  Meanwhile a TV station got hold of this and aired a story of which I was not a part.  In fact I wrote my letter after I saw the TV program.  I was roundly criticized by some in my church and applauded by others.  One criticism levelled against me though illustrates the dilemma facing Islam because it is a dilemma which faces many religions including Christianity.

One woman said Harry Potter was evil because the Bible teaches us that we should not associate with witches.  Therefore, by encouraging our children to read a series essentially about witches and warlocks, we go against the word of God.

The problem is the Bible does not merely teach we should not associate with witches.  The woman referred to Exodus 22:18 which says:  “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”  The New Revised Standard Version – my modern language English version of choice - makes this even clearer:  “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.”  In other words Hermione Granger must die.

I asked this woman why she wasn’t actually following the Bible and killing witches.  There are a few openly professing witches in our society so there are plenty of people to kill.  I told her that while she claims to follow the Bible, she is watering it down because she does not want to suffer the inconvenience of prison.  In short, she is not following the word of God.

I do not, of course, espouse killing of witches.  Yet the fact that the Bible says they should be killed, and the fact that I and millions of other Christians believe the Bible is the word of God should disturb us.  Why don’t we kill witches?

Christianity throughout the ages has a number of reasons why not.  But of course, there was also a time when many women were burnt alive for being witches.  Christianity has literally enforced this rule, particularly during the Middle Ages.  The Salem witch trials of the 17^th century show that even in times that are not Medieval, Christianity has had its share of literally following God’s word.

There are two reasons why this woman did not kill witches.  First, she doesn’t like killing.  That’s a good thing.  Second, laws like this are only in force when God has a civil power which represents him.  Protestants today say that ancient Israel was God’s representative on earth and so laws like this are followed if, and only if, there is a clear civil authority established by God.  There are, in other words, civil laws and moral laws in the Bible.  Moral laws are not bound by civil powers.  “Thou shalt not steel” applies in any society.  And, regardless of who is in power, we should always honor our parents.  But any civil attachments are null and void because there is no divinely ordained civil power.

In the case of Exodus 22:18, then, the law is null because we do not have the authority to kill witches.  But because it is in the Bible, we must adhere to the principle that witches should be avoided.  The woman in question espoused the basic Protestant analysis of such questions.

But here is where things become disturbing.  What if there was a civil authority?  The Roman Catholic Church, for example, gave us the Inquisition when it had civil authority.  In America, the Inquisition was drastically watered down to The Legion of Decency which only listed what was good and what was bad, but had no other authority.  But what if it did have authority?

What if a fundamentalist regime took over America?  Would laws like this be enforced?  Would we revert back to stoning and depriving women of most of the rights they have now?  The problem facing Christians is whether we have the right to go against the plain teachings of the Bible.  Exodus 22:18 is clear cut.  You can’t water it down.  You can excuse inaction today based on the civil powers doctrine, but if a civil power is established, what then?

Christianity has two general responses to this dilemma.  One is that when Jesus shows up, he will sort things out and establish a righteous government.  Then everything will be OK.  The problem with this view is what does that mean?  What is a righteous government?  Isn’t that defined in the Torah and the Bible?  Does not Isaiah say that in the last days people will learn about God’s law and does not Malachi say we should “Remember the law of Moses along with the statutes and ordinances before the dreadful day of the Lord?  (See Malachi 4:4)..  But since the Messiah will be all powerful there’s nothing much I can do about whatever laws he establishes.  So even though these questions are interesting and possibly disturbing, those holding the Messianic view simply wait and see.  There is a lot to be said for this view.

But the other view is that we should set up our society to conform to God’s laws.  This is the position of the Moral Majority which sprang up in the 1980’s and this is a position still espoused today.  A righteous state is necessary to receive the blessings of God.  If we do what is right, God will bless us.  If we do what is wrong, God will curse us.  It’s as simple as that.  But how far should we go?  People who espouse this view say the Bible is our guide.  So lookout.  If you pick up sticks on the Sabbath day, you’re toast.  Actually you’re crushed pulp because you will be stoned.

Islam faces exactly the same dynamic.  Some Muslims say they should wait for Allah to sit in judgment and sort things out.  Others say that there should be a holy caliphate  which should enforce the Koran as it reads.  And this is exactly what ISIS is.  It is the Muslim Moral Majority except that they have seized civil power.

Modern Christians ignore the civil laws and penalties in the Torah and elsewhere in the Bible largely because there is no civil righteous Christian government ordained by God to allow for their enforcement.  Islam has largely been in the same situation.  But not anymore.  ISIS is a real true blue Caliphate complete with a real true blue Caliph.  And those who believe the Koran and other holy traditions should be literally followed are over the moon.  With a civil authority established, the religion can be followed faithfully.  In other words, now we can kill witches, we will.

A lot of Christians say “we are not like them.”  But we are like them in that we face the same questions they face.  Some Christians, if given the chance, would come up with the same answer as ISIS only in a Christian context.  Some Christian militants in Africa have already gone down this road.  It is naïve for Christians to think that the questions Islam faces are totally alien to anything Christianity has to deal with.  In truth, Christians and Muslims are more alike than many are willing to admit.  There is a chance that a Christian ISIS could emerge.  It wouldn’t be exactly the same as the ISIS we face now, but the principles which guide it would be the same.  That is, the reasons for forming such a fundamentalist group would be exactly the same.

With respect to ISIS, our leaders continually make the same mistake.  They are unwilling to see things from the mindset of the deeply religious.  They do not understand the psychology because they are generally only nominally religious, if at all.  They say that ISIS is not Islam.  They are wrong.  ISIS is a real viable branch of Islam in the same way the Branch Davidians were a real branch of Christianity.  The main difference between the two is one king succeeded in gaining power, while the other did not.

I maintain the only reason why ISIS like fundamentalism has not broken out in the USA or Australia, either an Islamic form or a Christian form, is that both countries have a strong ruling government.  Iraq does not thanks in large part to the power vacuum the Americans created.  If power were weakened in the US, I think you would find fundamentalist groups springing up and some of those would be quite happy to kill all the Canaanites, and define what Canaanite means in their local context.  And lest atheist think they are exempt from such fanaticism, I present Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Hitler.  Enough said.  Having “the truth” and having the power to enforce “the truth” is frightening no matter what your religion or ideology.  It is very dangerous for us to say “We are not like them.  We are better than they are.” 

A Modest (and somewhat stupid) Proposal

Here in Australia we face the very real possibility that our Prime Minister will be dumped in favour of someone else.  When the other party, the Australian Labour Party was in power, we started off with Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister.  He was dumped by the party in favor of Julia Gillard, who was then eventually dumped herself in favor of Kevin Rudd once more.  Now with the Liberals in power, it appears this sequence will repeat itself once again though with different characters.  This all reminds me of one of the best episodes of Gilligan’s Island called The Little Dictator.  In this episode, an ousted Latin American dictator played wonderfully by Nehemiah Persoff, lands on the island.  He has the only gun on the island and takes control.  There is a sequence in which the dictator walks with Gilligan, whom he has at gunpoint to a meeting of the castaways.  They go behind a rock and an off screen struggle ensues.  When they emerge, Gilligan holes the gun on the dictator.  Then they walk behind a bush and another off-screen struggle takes place.  When they emerge, the dictator has the gun and the two continue walking.

This seems to be what Australian politics is all about lately.  But aside from constant speculation of who next week’s Prime Minister will be, the country seems to be mismanaged as well, though probably not as poorly as one would think based on what the media tells us.  But it does seem that Australia is run like Gilligan’s Island sometimes.

So why not consider something different.  Why not have six year alternating terms.  The Liberals run the country for six years with everyone in both house and senate being of that party.  Then, Labour gets the gig for the next six years with everyone in both houses being of that persuasion.  Of course we can’t really do this because then we would not be a democracy.  The people would not be allowed to vote on the issues nor would they be allowed to choose a candidate.  So let’s modify this proposal slightly.  Let’s say that each party must nominate three candidates per district per term and the people can choose which candidate they want.  That way, the illusion that the people actually have a say in their government can continue.  Thus, the Liberals put up three candidates per district, all Liberal, and the people elect which one they want, and so forth.

While this is probably a ridiculous idea it does have some benefits.  For one thing, elections would not really matter that much and the public would not be bombarded by them.  We would elect our local representative and that’s it.  Second, since we know the party in power only gets six years regardless, they can go about managing the country without worrying about poles, speculation, or policies.  What?  I hear you ask?  Of course they need to worry about policies.  To this I counter, why?  They don’t worry about it now.  Policy is really only meant to fool the public into electing them.  They don’t do what they say they are going to do anyway.

But this proposal, as it stands, does have one weakness. . .OK maybe a few, but I’ll only concentrate on one.  Since there is no accountability, why would the Prime Minister manage at all?  Why wouldn’t he have a six year party at taxpayer’s expense?  No reason.  So I have to modify this a little more.

The way to do this is to put some rules in place which will minimize the damage mismanagement could do.  For example, we could mandate that every 20 years, a comprehensive tax review takes place and changes to taxation can only occur within one year of the review’s conclusion.  The other 19, no changes.  No tax increases, no tax decreases, nothing.  The law stays as is.  We can do the same for superannuation.  Between reviews, no changes, no tinkering.  Imagine how much stability this would give everyone.  Business confidence might actually rise because everyone would know what to expect most of the time.  The Reserve Bank continues to be independent.

As an incentive for the Prime Minister to manage properly, if he gets ousted, he loses his pension.  If the budget is in deficit when his term is over, none of those in power for the last six years get one cent of pension.  I’m sure we could think of a few more rules to put in place to force those in power to manage properly.    And finally, since we still have elections every six years, the public gets to vote on the approval rating of the party who was just in power.  If the approval rating of the party which was last in power is 40% or less, none of them get any pension, any perks or any government subsidized benefits of any kind.  Of course this last idea would make the politicians slaves of public opinion just as they are now.  But there is one difference.  The only way to get out of any approval rating jam is to do a competent job.  If, instead, they argue and bicker as to who will lead them, then they will lose any benefits they could have had because there is no way that kind of behavior would increase their approval rating.

So there you have it, an absolutely ridiculous idea for fixing Australia.  I mean, it is ridiculous right?  Sure it is.  And yet. . .Yes, definitely ridiculous.  Absolutely ridiculous.