Would you burn the Koran? Or just delete it?
At First Things a few days ago, Joe Carter was growing somewhat exasperated by the reflexive tut-tutting from all sides against Pastor Terry Jones’ plans (now apparently definitively canceled) to burn copies of the Koran. The Ten Commandments are pretty clear as to what God thinks of false religions, Carter noted.
So he proposed a thought experiment:
Imagine that you (a devout Christian, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, etc) are shown a button and are told that if you press it, all knowledge of the Koran will cease to exist. Every text version across the globe will instantly disappear and any passages that were memorized will be forgotten. Muslims will not otherwise be affected other than their having no recall of the words of Allah as collected by Mohamed.
Would you press the button? How would you justify your decision? Would your decision be different if you had to make it solely based on the teaching of your faith and not on received cultural assumptions?
Over at PoliticsDaily, I thought about his (intriguing) thought experiment, and thought not.
Discuss, if it merits such.
Suire, let’s bring back that very ol’ time religion. And while we’re at it, we can bring back debt bondage (a great way to get people to cut back on credit cards, mortgages they can’t afford, etc.); corporal punishment of slaves (you could beat your slave to within an inch of his life “for the slave is his money”); trial by ordeal (in Numbers chapter 5, wives suspected of adultery are required to drink a disgusting libation whose effects are believed to reveal her infidelity); the forced marriage and discarding of female prisoners taken in war (enough of those Geneva Conventions, so obviously written by mushy liberal Protestants); and for good measure, the slaughter of all men and non-virginal women after victory in war. We could bring back capital punishment for recalcitrant children, too — imagine the deterrent value.
I have to admit that I do find the outrage of our elites on this matter altogether laughable. Hillary Clinton bloviates against Pastor Jones — this, from a woman who’s spent the last year badgering and threatening the people of Iran with incineration. President Obama and General Petraeus express their righteousness — this, from men who have no problem sending Predator missiles into Afghan and Pakistani villages. Clinton, Obama, and Petraeus are indeed defending American values, the sort whose violent imposition fools like Joe Carter have no problem defending.
Will all respect to Joe Carter, I find his thought experiment kind of nutty.
I think it’s more useful to consider that Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. If you look at what Christians sanctioned in the 1500s in the way of religious intolerance, some of us might have wanted to delete the Bible.
I wish I could find the source, but I remember finding some medieval sermons by rabbis cautioning their congregants to be careful of emulating their Christian neighbors; wife-beating was mentioned as a particular Christian evil.
Moreover, the “problem” with Islam (or militant Judaism or Christianity) is political, not theological.
Now, if there were a button that would allow me to delete all the recordings of ABBA, Bobby Goldsboro, or Danny O’Donnell, I would really have to struggle with my conscience.
Hi, Jean! The great rabbi and scholar, Meir ben Baruch of Rothenburg, known as the Maharam, wrote many Responsa which had an enormous impact on medieval Judaism. Among the topics he covered was wife-beating.
http://tiny.cc/lencp (Meir)
http://tiny.cc/fwpjp (Meir on wife-beating.)
As a student in Paris in 1242, he witnessed the burning of Talmuds in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame. The elegy he wrote about that is still part of the Tisha b’Av liturgy.
Hello All,
Since I teach philosophy, thought experiments are my bread and butter so I found David’s post and the related linked posts quite fun to study.
As usual, Jean’s comments are a lot wiser than anything I will offer. But I’ll start by saying I don’t see how Mr. Carter’s thought experiment would add any insight into the Pastor Jones case. I should add that I didn’t see Mr. Carter claiming that his thought experiment would give us any such insight and I agree with Mr. Carter that the Pastor Jones case should be regarded as a nonevent.
But to answer the question Mr. Carter poses to his readers, no I would most certainly not push the button. The more I think about it, the more I’m impressed by the huge loss we would all suffer if somehow all knowledge of the Koran were to suddenly disappear. Hundreds of millions of us would be altered beyond recognition. And even if one had no problem with the morality of a decision to alter the beliefs of millions without their consent, would one be happy with the expected results?
Allow me to modify Mr. Carter’s thought experiment a bit so that it is closer to home for me, with the understanding that I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes in Marian apparitions (which I generally do not). Very recently I learned of a lesser-known reported Marian apparition that the local bishop has declared to be false. (Maybe it’s lesser known because of the actions of this bishop?) Suppose I could push a button that would erase all knowledge of reports of this reported Marian apparition. And suppose I am tempted to do so for all variety of reasons. Leaving aside that I think my pushing this new button would violate the rights of all my fellow Catholics who believe in the authenticity of this apparition, what would be the aftermath? Why shouldn’t I expect that most of the new “amnesiacs” will adopt some new belief even more offensive to their local bishop (and me?)?
Also, as an aside, my parents loved ABBA. And no, I cannot explain this. But for their sake I would spare ABBA.
Gerelyn, many thanks for digging up those links!
If memory serves, some of these sermons originated in 15th century Spain, where some areas under Muslim rule were models of religious tolerance for those times. I found references to these writings in a festschrift (many decades ago now) on domestic affairs in medieval Europe, and was quite intrigued!
Not to say that medieval Jews and Muslims were the only ones promoting interfaith tolerance. Bishop St. Hugh of Lincoln defended Jews in the north of England before the Expulsion. Ironic the fictitious “little St. Hugh of Lincoln” (see Chaucer’s “Prioress’s Tale”) was a story circulated to inflame anti-semitic feeling.
I digress. Apologies.
Peter, Raber loves ABBA–he even has the movie of their tour in Australia–which just goes to show how much you often have to overlook in a marriage.
I wouldn’t go see “Mamma Mia,” so Raber bribed The Boy into going with promises of free popcorn or something. The kid said they were the only males in a theater full of women past a certain age, and the only good thing about it was that none of his friends was there to see him.
Hello Again All,
I realized after submitting my earlier post that one might get the impression that I think knowledge of the Koran is on a par with belief in a report of a Marian apparition that is disavowed by one’s local bishop. I certainly don’t think that, and I apologize sincerely if I gave anyone that impresion.
The only point I was trying to make in my own made up example is that I think it’s a mistake, and a very grave mistake, to think that pushing the button in Mr. Carter’s thought experiment would make the world a better place. If it could hurt all to eliminate knowledge of this (quite recently) reported apparition that again the local bishop has declared to be false, how much more might we all suffer if we lost knowledge of the Korn, which has influenced the lives of so many millions for so many centuries?
A last add – It occurred to me that Richard Dawkins (whose work on evolutiuonary biology I love) might have have no problem pushing a third button that would eliminate all knowledge of the Old and the New Testaments.
This thought experiment reminded me of what Richard Dawkins says at the beginning of The God Delusion:
Hello Jean (and All),
I nearly made a terrible mistake about five years ago when I planned on getting my Dad tickets for “Mama Mia”. Fortunately I learned in time that my parents like the music of ABBA so much they don’t want to hear it perfromed by any other then the original artists!
On the other hand, that button that will delete all the films featuring Victor Mature looks mighty enticing. . .
Slightly more seriously – should I as a professional philosopher push yet another button that would zap out all of Ayn Rand? I would think, of course not, for reasons that by now are hopefully plain for all participants here.
Joe Carter says:
Of course, to Muslims, desecrating the Qu’ran is — according to the tenets of their religion a religious law — not just something akin to burning the American flag. It is much more along the lines of desecrating the sacred species.
Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose someone in England planned to desecrate a consecrated host the minute the Pope arrived for his upcoming visit and managed to get a lot of media coverage. Would Joe Carter call it “silly”? I gather Carter is an Evangelical, not a Catholic, so perhaps he might not have feelings as strong as Catholics, but my guess is he would be outraged rather than annoyed.
Carter says, “Pastor Phil Johnson recently pointed out a truth that should be apparent to anyone who has read the Old Testament: ‘Nothing is more offensive to God than false religion. . . . False religion is gross sin. The person who worships a false god is as abhorrent to the true God as a publican or a prostitute. And the person who worships YHWH in a false or hypocritical way is engaging in wanton sin just as surely as the thief or murderer.’” My question is, Who gets to say what is a true religion and which is a false religion?
Slightly more seriously – should I as a professional philosopher push yet another button that would zap out all of Ayn Rand?
Peter,
The whole thought experiment seems to imply that burning books is a greater offense than wiping out every trace of the content of those books, including people’s memories of what was in those books. I am sure if the villains of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 had been given the choice between editing history and burning books, on the one hand, and Carter’s magic button on the other, they would have far preferred the magic-button approach. Why should burning books be so reprehensible that it is rejected out of hand and directly altering people’s minds be something you have to puzzle over?
“On the other hand, that button that will delete all the films featuring Victor Mature looks mighty enticing. . . ”
For shame! You have clearly not watched “I Wake Up Screaming,” a wonderful noir movie. And I had had many happy hours reviling Ayn Rand in the bars of my youth. Please don’t take away those memories!
David Nichol wrote: “Suppose someone in England planned to desecrate a consecrated host the minute the Pope arrived for his upcoming visit and managed to get a lot of media coverage.”
I doubt Catholics across the world would burn him in effagy, I doubt Opus Dei would threaten to attack and kill all secular humanists. I doubt the Dominicans would state that he is threatening world peace. I doubt Catholics would burn secular-humanist temples of reason and libraries in Brazil, or assasinate the secular-humanist equivalent of nuns. I doubt secular movie producers will be stabbed in the streets and secular authors have death sentences imposed on them in abstentia.
David Nichol also wrote: “My question is, Who gets to say what is a true religion and which is a false religion?”
What wonderful sophistry! And who dared to claim that child-rape was immoral? or cannibalism? or polygamy? Who made the rediculous assumption that women have souls (or anyone for that matter) ?
Aren’t all religions just the same? all ideologies equal? all political positions valid? As Chesterton said, to claim that all religions are equal is to claim they are all equally useless.
The fact is that the Qu’ran is the 1400 year old ravings of an illiterate, war-mongering pedaphile.
We learn from anthropology to observe what people actually do before listening to their explanations for why they do it.
Deleting the reasons for a group’s behavior from their memory would not alter their behavior.
Delete Victor Mature? My first ideal man? As a toddler, I adored him, and I’ve judged all men since by him.
I hope this is not too tangential, but I read the entire piece by Pastor Phil Johnson that Carter linked to, and this was one of the comments:
Now, I know next to nothing about art, so I don’t think this is snobbery on my part. I would think that anyone who takes his family to a museum to look at art might have the glimmer of an idea that depicting the Madonna and Child with the Apostles Peter and Paul is not some gross mistake on the part of the artists in figuring out the chronology of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. The appropriate reaction to seeing the Christ Child next to the elderly Peter and Paul would be to do some research on Renaissance Art, not to get angry.
Wikipedia tells us the following:
Interestingly, almost every source I consulted gave the meaning of sacra conversazione as “holy (or sacred) conversation.” But on Google Books I found Hans Holbein by Oskar Bätschmann and Pascal Griener that says (correctly, I am sure) that the genre of painting designated by the term sacra conversazione does not have as its subject “sacred conversation” but rather the “community of saints.”
After doing quite a lot of research, I didn’t find out as much as I thought I would about the origin and significance of sacra conversazione paintings, but it is clear that, after the convention of painting a number of figures in different panels, a new convention developed of collecting the depictions of the Madonna and Child and various saints all on one canvas. Here’s an example of the sacra conversazione genre by Bellini.
I doubt Catholics across the world would burn him in effagy, I doubt Opus Dei would threaten to attack and kill all secular humanists. I doubt . . . .
Adam,
I doubt all of those things, too. My point was that Christians, and Catholics in particular, would not describe the threatened desecration of one of their most sacred objects as “silly.” Desecrating the Qu’ran to Muslims is very serious indeed, just like desecrating a consecrated host would be very serious to Catholics. If you want to regard the Qu’ran as just another book from the perspective of everyone who is not a Muslim, then a consecrated host is just a little piece of bread to everyone who is not a Catholic. I doubt that Catholics would regard the public desecration of a consecrated host as a “silly stunt.”
David Nichol also wrote: “My question is, Who gets to say what is a true religion and which is a false religion?”
What wonderful sophistry!
It is not sophistry at all. It is not meant to imply that all religions are equal. It is a practical question. The Vatican recently pointed out that there are no more Muslims in the world than Catholics. If Catholics get to decide Islam is a “false religion,” and Muslims get to decide Catholicism is a “false religion,” Catholics are in trouble. As someone receiving a Catholic education in the 1950s and early 1960s, I might well have concluded that Jews and Protestants were following “false” religions.
The fact is that the Qu’ran is the 1400 year old ravings of an illiterate, war-mongering pedaphile.
Ordinarily I would not call attention to a misspelling, but if you are going make charges of pedophilia and illiteracy, it would probably be wise to spell pedophile correctly. In any case, you are not — to put it in the most charitable way I can — exhibiting the attitude of the Catholic Church toward Muslims. See Nostra Aetate:
Joe Carter says: “It’s not particularly surprising that Christ loved the Hebrew Bible since the book is primarily about him (Luke 24:25-27).”
This is an extravagant interpretation of Luke, isn’t it?
Question: Since the Hebrew Bible is “primarily about” Jesus, is Judaism a “false religion” to the extent that it is misreading its own sacred scripture?
Luke 24:25-27
Luke 24: 46-48
Interesting footnote to Luke to these two passages from The New American Bible:
So where is it written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead?
Hello Gerelyn and Jean (and All),
For shame indeed! You’re right Jean, I have not seen “I Wake Up Screaming”. I will try to view it in the near future.
Granted I am clowning around a little about Mr. Mature (who was admittedly quite good in one film I have seen (“My Darling Clementine”).) But I think this silly example illustrates quite well a general point we are making here, namely, that no individual is really competent to make these kinds of decisions. And I’m not sure that even the most careful and conscientious body of people would be likely to make such decisions well. I say that because I find it both interesting and telling to consider some of the books that were, and were not, included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum before Paul VI abolished it in 1966.
“No individual is really competent to make these kinds of decisions.”
Not only are individuals not competent to make these kinds of decisions, they don’t have the right. And even if they did, it would be futile, and therein lies what I think is cockeyed about Carter’s thought experiment.
Dispatch an idea in a book by burning it (or the person who wrote it) or, more tidily, by deleting it, and something else just as objectionable is going to come along.
More to the point, many even more objectionable ideas will come along. (7?)
The people to object to the West will still object to the West, for whatever reasons, but now they will not be tied together by a common devotion to the Koran. They will be left scattered. but probably more problematic because they will be less predictable, and have less in common with more reasonable people. That is what the tower of Babel is about, destroying a common culture and scattering people so they cannot understand one another.
Imagine that you (a Commonweal contributor) are shown a button and are told that if you press it, the comment which you targeted will cease to exist. Every screen across the globe that previously featured it will instantly make it disappear and any passages that referred to it will also disappear. Commenters will not otherwise be affected other than their having no recall of the words of the offensive comment.
Would you press the button? How would you justify your decision?
Not that I disagree with most individual deletions when I happen to see them, but the fact that there remains no trace, not even a box saying “this comment has been removed” is vaguely disturbing. How do I know that what remains visible is not a highly biased subset of people’s remarks?
David, you are correct and the irony could only be stronger if I had misspelled ‘illiterate’ but I think we both know that Mohammed’s literacy (not spelling) is not a mater of historical debate like Jesus’. But my ability to spell in English (I am francophone) is a far cry from Mohammed’s claim to speak directly from God (in any number of languages). If someone were to claim that the Psalms were written by a murdering adulterer, or the books of Chronicles written by genocidal maniacs I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the summation.
As concerning Nostra Aetate it shoudl be noted that there are good people of every creed and no creed all, all over the earth. Few of my friends are Catholic and I am friends with many pro-choice individulas, a position I find repugnant. I think that most of them are good people (anyone I can sit down with over a beer is ‘good people’…hence my inherent distrust of Islam) despite their ideologogical beliefes, not because of them. But Nostra Aetate speaks of individual Muslims and similarities between the Muslims and Judeo-Christian mythology (some of whom are my friends and I routinely take my religion 11 world religions class to the local mosque) and not the founder of that particular religion. I believe that most Muslims, like most any group, are good people. Usually despite their ideology. People are people. I am certain that there were good Nazis, good Soviets, good KKK member, good black Panthers, good Khmer Rouge but that is no excuse for the ideology at hand. Shouldnt’t we, in democratic tradition, evaluate the veracity and value of each and every ideological position? It is little surprise that this sect that grew up on the outskirts of civilization should be influenced by the cultural proliferation of the Jews and Roman empire at their inseption. But are we not entitled to ask wherether it is fertile soil? whether it has not run its course? Islam has survived because it contributed to something that resonated with human nature. Much like buddhism, it contains a truth and a beauty. But any mathematician will tell you that when moving from A to B, if the angle of trargetory is off, at a certain point, the further along the line you more, the further from the target you are.
I should note that you made no effort to correct my claims concerning Mohammed. I can only think that the only word I used that is controversial is “raving”. The other adjectives are accurate concerning that particular historical character.
Adam, many people in Europe (especially, landed people) betrothed their children at what we would consider unseemly youthful ages. Catherine de Medici married Henry of France when she was 13. It wouldn’t take long to unearth other examples. So I am pushing back: what’s the proof that Muhammad was sexually active with a prepubescent female? He was betrothed to a 10 year old (that’s the youngest I could find) — and married at least two or three women who were in the age range of 15-17, and a few others who were considerably older (like 40 or 50). None of that adds up to pedophilia.
Adam,
You seem very angry.
Barbara, you are correct that often children, especially royal children are betrothed to older (almost always men). But the question isn’t one of culture and marriage. Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6, something that is not extraordinary. What is disturbing is that he consummated the marriage when she was 9, which is prepubescent by any measure. In fact Mohammed claims that this was the will of Allah.
Now King David might have been an adulterer and murderer, but he a) didn’t claim to be speaking for God and b) repented of his ways. Mohammed on the other hand almost seems to boast in his marriage (exploit?):
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234-236
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Narrated ‘Aisha:
That the Prophet said to her, “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.”
Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis. It is pointless to attempt to make a psychiatric diagnosis of someone who lived in the seventh century, long before psychiatry existed, and in a completely different culture.
Saint Thomas More supported burning heretics at the stake, and six were burned during his tenure as Chancellor. We no longer believe in burning heretics at the stake, but we have not rescinded the canonization of More. By today’s standards, the Founding Fathers, and even Abraham Lincoln, were racists. We do not condemn them for this today. We understand that people who lived in different times or in different cultures cannot be judged by the standards of today.
I suppose some might want to make the case that sex between an adult man and a 9-year-old girl is intrinsically evil and never permissible. However, that would not answer the question of Mohammed’s personal character any more than Thomas More’s approval of executing heretics proves he is unworthy of sainthood.
You might just as well try to discredit Judaism for Abraham’s incestuous marriage (Sarah was his half sister) and polygamy.
Adam’s posts made me wonder how child marriage is viewed by Islam today. Aljazeera (figured it would be most useful to see what the Islamic world says for itself) reported on circumstances of child marriage in Yemen today, a practice that seems to have divided Yemenis.
http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/africa/2010831920332122.html
I don’t feel any particular need to defend Islam here, but I don’t think what’s going on here is pedophilia.
The impetus for child marriage seems less motivated by religion than by economics and politics. Poor families may marry out a daughter to get the bride price that will support the family. Imams, who want to maintain Sharia law and perhaps their power and influence, are fighting civil legislators who passed a minimum age of 17 for marriage.
Child marriage and betrothal occurs in many parts of the world. (We might remember that Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin). But where there is money involved and people are poor and desperate, horrors will occur. (I recommend the Indian movie “Water.” an extremely well-done and poignant look at child marriage and its evils).
Clearly, however, there are Muslim men and women who oppose the practice of child marriage and have made successful efforts to save girls like Sally in the Aljazeera story.
The imams may construe Islam in the most conservative way for their own purposes.
But other Muslims seem to have been encouraged by their faith to uphold the dignity and safety of children, and where there are people of faith and love, justice will prevail.
Since nobody has so far said whether or not they would press the “delete” buttong in this thought experiment, I will.
Given the conditions described, I would press the delete button. That would give Muslims and the rest of us another chance.
Ken,
A few questions . . .
Have you read the Qu’ran?
Do you believe we are at war with Islam?
Are you really saying you would be willing to erase memories in the minds of 1.5 billion people?
If given the power, would you alter the minds of the dictators of the world so that they become more benign? What about erasing selected memories of Kim Jong-il to make Korea a better place?
Are there any texts (and corresponding memories) you would erase? What about the works of Martin Luther?
” It is little surprise that this sect that grew up on the outskirts of civilization . . .”
Adam –
Islam grew up on the outskirts of what used to be the Hellenistic and Roman empires. That they produced great philosophy, literature and law does not cancel out the fact that women in those cultures had few rights, and the Romans were also barbaric in some of their practices, e.g., the “games” in which lions ate people. Islam was an improvement over that. So who was “civilized”?
All –
One of my ancestors married so young her husband gave her a doll as a wedding present. Another one, whom I knew, married her first cousin, which wasn’t at all unusual in those days. (Happy marriage, no reltives with 12 toes.) Nowadays it seems that if a woman marries a man 10 years older than she, then he is considered a pervert by some. But last week I saw a movie starring Judy Garland at about 20 and Fred Astaire who was obviously in his 50s. Nobody thought anything at all about that in those not very long ago days.
C’mon. Believe the psychologists when they say we can be brain-washed into believing all sorts of things. And culture does brain[wash. So, no, we ought not to judge the consciences of other individuals no matter how repulsive their beliefs. (And I’m starting to wonder if coming generations are going to consider us barbarians because we eat meat.)
Ken, I think several posters have said that nobody has the right to delete books containing ideas they don’t like or find objectionable. But that “fresh start” might turn out to be something worse, rather than better. There’s no end of dumb stuff people can dream up.
I think this thread is about played out, but, just as another cockamamy “thought experiment,” if there were parts of the Bible–Old or New Testament–that you could delete, would you? And what parts would those be?
My finger would hover perilously close to “delete” over the Book of Revelation, such that I might have to ask Raber to deactivate the button so as to avoid an occasion of sin. Not that the book itself is so bad, but it’s been perverted so badly by poor theologians, that I’m not sure it hasn’t lost all semblance of meaning.
Only at Commonweal do we have people defending child-rape (Mr. Nickol noted that we can’t assume a psychological disorder on someone dead so let’s call it what it is) in the name of ecumenism. Give your heads a shake…the marriage was consummated at 9 years old. As a teacher I work with children (high school, between 13 and 18) and I can assure you that 9 is prepubescent by any measure.
Isn’t this the same site that refused to associate the priestly child-abuse scandal with homosexuality because homosexuality is the predominant attraction to post-pubescent males? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. How old were the victims of the clerics? I suppose we can all safely dismiss the clerical scandal because of cultural differences. Isn’t the catchword here: the clerical culture?
And Ann, you really have to twist the word ‘civilization’ to apply it to the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammed. It was really not much more than a trading route populated by a nomadic, illiterate group of merchant-traders. I don’t think I need to remind you that the etymology of civilization is linked to citizen, and Arab culture (cultures?) at that point hardly contained the complex social order required for the concept of belonging to a ‘civilization.’ At least I am willing to give modern Arab-Islamic culture the title of civilization but your definition relying on the treatment of women must surely exclude Muslim culture the high title of ‘civilization.’
Truly the Greeco-Roman empires were in a nosedive at the time, the twilight of the cultures, but that is likely the primary material cause for the success of Islam in spreading across the peninsula and north africa (by the sword).
I can think of one person who would likely have deleted the Qu’ran (I am not one…I couldn’t even throw out Ellen Gould White’s ‘The Great Controversy Ended’): Chesterton. At least the Chesterton of “The Flying Inn” and “The Man Who Was Thursday” would have as he wrote that the only crime people should hang for is heresy. Theft and murder are bad, but wrong thought is fantastically dangerous. If Hitler only went around killing people (to get into art school?) he wouldn’t make the historical record. It is precisely because of his ideology that he was so phenomenally dangerous.
Only at Commonweal do we have people defending child-rape (Mr. Nickol noted that we can’t assume a psychological disorder on someone dead so let’s call it what it is) in the name of ecumenism.
Adam,
No one is defending “child-rape.” I am pointing out that it makes no sense to judge a 7th-century man by 21st-century standards. It is such a simple and obvious point that it shouldn’t even have to be stated.
“And Ann, you really have to twist the word ‘civilization’ to apply it to the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammed.
Adam –
There are different meanings of civilization, and appeal a word’s origin does not thereby constitute that original meaning as “the real meaning”. All meanings are real. Some are more useful than others, some are more common than others. So appeal to a lack of citizens in the Arabian peninsula does not disqualify the Muslims faith as uncivilized. My point was that Greece and Rome lacked some practices that the Muslims had and the Romans, at least, acted in barberous ways that the Muslims did not.
As to treatment of women by Muslims, historically the Muslims were in some ways ahead of the Europeans, giving women credit for more brains than Europeans typically did. In other ways the Europeans were ahead of the Muslims. That’s why I ended my post with a question — who is the civilized? One must ask — who is the civilized and in which ways?
I might also point out that Muslim civilization’s medieval age began several hundred years before the Christian one, and in fact influenced the Christians highly both in science, math, and philosophy.
Ann, I am sorry if I interpreted your question as being rhetorical. As an honest question it has much merit because it strikes to the heart of the meaning of ‘civilization’ and to the discussion about whipping Islamic ‘civilization’ off the map by deleting the Qu’ran.
You are correct that a lack of citizenship does not necessarily constitute a condemnation of the Islamic faith as uncivilized. Rather, you will notice the context in which I wrote: I claimed that Islam grew up on the periphery of Roman and Jewish civilization and that some ‘borrowing’ occurred. I also inferred that the Arab culture (cultures more properly) at the time Islam was founded hardly constitute a ‘civilization’ and Mohammed (and therefore the ideology propounded) was the product of that lack of civilization in the sense you imply and this narrowed Islam’s scope and vision. In making that statement I was referring to Nostra Aetate’s praise for Islam, which should be noted is limited to areas of agreement between Catholicism (and arguably Judaism and western civilization). In our western rush to avoid charges of orientalism, I find that too often we heap unwarranted praise on eastern cultures out of self-loathing, guilt and exoticism.
Collins dictionary defines civilization as such:
1. a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization; an advanced state in social development
2. the peoples or nations collectively who have achieved such a state
3. the total culture and way of life of a particular people, nation, region, or period: classical civilization
4. the process of bringing or achieving civilization
5. intellectual, cultural, and moral refinement
6. cities or populated areas, as contrasted with sparsely inhabited areas, deserts, etc
_______
The only definition that is even arguably applicable to 4th century Arabia is the third, but I think it is arguable that the various arab tribes’ discord tends to negate the applicability of ‘civilization’ to that area at the time of the founding of Islam.
Now Mohammed might come close to founding a civilization through the codification of laws, the expansion of a social hierarchy, the unification of rival and waring tribes; but that is different from saying that the Islamic faith developed in a civilized area. It is not a value judgement on the current level of civil development in Muslim lands. It is only what it is: that at the time of Mohammed, Arabia was by comparison to the Roman Empire uncivilized. Furthermore, I maintain that despite the laudable advancements in the Middle East, today the lands dominated by Islam are still, by comparison to western society, uncivilized in your sense of the word.
Who am I to make that value judgement? I am a Catholic who believes that there exists an objective and knowable ethical foundation to the universe that is most accurately represented by Catholic moral teaching as it has developed throughout the last 2000 years and continues to develop today. Either that or the logical positivists are right that ethical statements are meaningless, in which case David Nickol’s objection to my criticism of Mohammed is likewise meaningless.
Adam,
It is reasonable to make the value judgment that “child rape” is objectively wrong. What is not reasonable is to judge Mohammed to be an evil man because he consummated a marriage with a 9-year-old girl. I note that you refer to “Catholic moral teaching as it has developed throughout the last 2000 years and continues to develop today” (emphasis added). That’s the point. Even if it is the case that right and wrong are objective, that does not mean that those in the past should have known what we know today. It is wrongheaded to hold historical figures accountable to the standards of today when those standards developed after the historical figures lived. Do we condemn St. Paul for saying, “Slaves, obey your masters,” rather than, “Masters, free your slaves”? Do we condemn Abraham for marrying his half-sister? )Was Abraham “civilized”?) Do we condemn St. Thomas More for burning heretics?
Also, you are on shaky ground when you condemn a person — even a contemporary person — for committing an act rather than limiting yourself to condemning the act. A person may commit an act that is objectively wrong and have diminished moral culpability or no culpability at all.
Finally, your use of the term “child rape” is itself anachronistic (as was your charge of pedophilia). What you are really talking about is “statutory rape,” which is a modern concept (1898). This is not to say that sex between an adult male and a 9-year-old girl is not objectively wrong. But accusing Mohammed of committing “child rape” is like accusing Joshua or King Saul of violating the Geneva Conventions.
No David – I have not read the Koran and no, I do not think we are at war with Islam.
And yes – for the sake of this “thought experiment” – I would be willing to erase Islam from the minds of 1.5 billion people you mention.
While of course we would have the Arabs and other Muslim peoples (we are not talking about erasing people), what would the world look like without Islam? What would be missing? That is a good question.