What the west needs to know about Islam
Various prominent leaders of the western countries have continually perpetuated the notion of true Islam as peaceful, tolerant and non-condoning towards violence. The implication is separation of terrorism and violence by Islamic people from their Islam faith. However, Robert Spencer supported by scholars such as Serge Trifkovic argues against such an assumption deeming it as non-logical. They present an argument detailing historical Islamic literature supporting violence and other forms of radicalism all done in the bid to prove religious devotion.
The western world is considered misguided in assuming existence of an authentic, tolerant and non-violence branch of Islam. This is in light of Islamic traditions, the Koran and other ancient Islamic manuscripts supporting suppression of other religions and encouraging radical spread of Islam throughout the world. In addition, Prophet Muhammad is considered by the Muslim community as the perfect man. Consequently, it is the religious goal of Muslims to be more like him in action and faith to attain perfection. With this in mind, Robert presents proof of numerous incidents where the prophet castigated radical acts of violence to suppress other religions or non-Islamic communities such as Jews.
The danger associated with the western way of thinking in regards to Islam and terrorism is anticipating an end to terrorism with through diplomatic non-violent means. Additionally, the western world is unable to explain the continuity coupled by escalation or religious based violence. Fundamental Islamic teachings illustrate violence as a means to achieving religious goals such as worldwide conversion of infidels or suppression of other religions. With an inaccurate perspective, the western world is unable to contain the violence perpetuated against it. Additionally, the argument perpetuated by Spencer and allied scholars builds the global prejudice against Islam and Muslim in general by non-Muslims.
An observation by a world war two military historian concluded one in four soldiers tries to kill the enemy outright with no lapse of objectivity. According to the documentary soldiers of conscience, contrary to popular belief, most soldiers are reluctant to kill while in war and usually do not shoot to kill but incapacitate the enemy long enough to survive or win. Am in agreement with the documentary explanation of conscience, where a person’s conscience inherently knows or distinguishes right from wrong. Additionally the human psychic cannot be objective entirely when a person is forced to act against the conscience’s beliefs. This explains why soldiers as shown in the documentary struggle with guilt after killing in war or have their perspective on humanity changed in their post war lives.
Some soldiers, who deem themselves as objective, have simply created some philosophy or way of thinking to justify their behavior and action while in war. For instance, one soldier in the documentary views killing as part of a soldier’s job description where soldiers strive to kill the opponents in war. However, this is contrary to basic human tenet and psychological theories for behavior. One cannot detach the influence environment has on behavior and cognition as illustrated by the social cognition theory. This explains the syndromes most veterans confess to experience after war given the effect of the war environment. One veteran describes war as stripping a person’s humanity in order to survive. This is after witnessing, destroyed homes, decomposing bodies and grievously injured children while deployed in Iraq. He continually questions the moral fabric of America in engaging in a war after observing numerous civilian casualties. General human tenets define taking away someone else’s life as inhuman and cruel thus deserving punishment. This tenet is violated and breached whenever people engage in war.