Yesterday, ACT! brought William French (Bill Warner) to town to speak on "political Islam." I went to hear, take notes, record audio, and maybe speak out. For those who don't know, French - former physics professor - has taken on the nom de plume Bill Warner - the anti-formal-scholarship scourge of everyone who dares have a non-biased view of Islam. He now travels around as a self-declared expert on so-called political Islam and its relationship with non-Muslims - as mediated by every crack-pot theory and cherry-picked historical element proudly used by those afraid that their own version of world conquering religion is in danger of losing out to any other opposing force. (If it sounds like I am put off by him, I have to admit that anyone who sells his own explanatory copy of the Koran and can't actually speak Arabic is at the bottom of my list of "scholars" I am likely to consult about Islam.)
The blog post that follows is an attempt to describe the meeting, outline my feelings during and after, and critique the message taught by Dr. French.
When I got to the building, all of the doors were locked. I was able to get in with another gentleman when a member unlocked the door for us. It appears that there may have been one entrance that was available from the other side of the building, but I didn't try to get to it after I was in to see if it was unlocked. I sat down and began take notes and record excerpts from the speech. It became immediately obvious that I was in the presence of the worst sort of liar... one who uses bits of truth to create lies. His analysis of the conquest of Islam (itself potentially suspect in light of the religious sources and archeological evidence), could have been applied to pretty much any conquest ever, including the conquest of Caanan by the Jews (who he claimed "never controlled territory") or the destruction of native religions in the US and Africa by Christian missionaries and armies. However, his facts consisted of cherry-picked history that - as is often the case with these types - emphasized atrocities committed in war, reported by the conquered, and used as case studies to laminate a twisted understanding of the beliefs of a third of the world's people onto a population that would for the most part reject every one of those stories as exemplary of what their own behavior should be.
To be clear, I am not an apologist for the various violent atrocities perpetuated by Muslims in the past or present. I am not an apologist for any war or state/power sanctioned violence ever, particularly ones in which religion serves as the primary motivating force. For me, that goes for the Jews of the OT, the Puritans in our own country, or any other group that demonstrates their moral superiority by killing those who aren't like them. The clear problem here was in the deliberate use of tactics that Christians routinely and vehemently reject when applied to themselves. None of us would allow a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or - God forbid - an atheist to set up what they think we believe based upon their reading of our texts, and then tear down their own fictional creation. This happened in spades last night. French consistently laid down a line of supposed facts based on his "research," and applied them without nuance as motivated by specific set of guidelines that he created based upon English interpretations of biased sources to every Muslim in existence. Apparently he is unfamiliar with the concept of a Straw Man, but he beat one in a big way last night.
In addition, every ill ever carried out by Christians was forgiven in light of the fact that IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT - it was the fault of those dang Muslims. I know you probably think I am exaggerating, but I am being absolutely truthful. For French, the instating of state powers in Christendom was supposedly to defend against Muslims (forgetting that Islam took much of its Territory from Byzantine Christians, already in power and at war with the Persians). The Crusades were defensive wars, in his view (conveniently ignoring the overarching need of the Church to rid themselves of the increasingly anti-clergy flagellates, and the church sanctioned killing of other Christians). In fact, Christians didn't even create Just War doctrines, that was the Muslims (because, apparently, Cicero and Augustine of Hippo didn't even exist inside his mythical world). And... you get the point.
I am no expert in Medieval and Pre-Medieval history, nor can I argue knowledge of a superior nature in relation to Muslim conquests of 12-1400 years ago, but I can say a few things with certainty. First, I actually have a degree in comparative religions. Part of that degree involved critical analysis of both historic and modern Islam under the tutelage of the humble and highly educated - and actual expert on Islamic jurisprudence - Dr. Ayman Shabana. This is in comparison to French's self-guided study, supposed tutelage many years ago under a "sufi master," degree in physics, and rejection of formal study of religion in a university environment.
I bring this up to state my second point: whatever the status of his historical fact gathering on medieval and modern Islam, his knowledge of facts on Christianity and its interactions with Muslims are flat out pathetic - this assuming he is not simply outright lying. Based on what I know historically, his statements on such things as Christian vs. Muslim treatment of Jews, the historical causes and reasons for wars in and around the Mediterranean, and how Muslim and Christian interactions have played out through the years is highly biased. So, for example, when Mongol and Muslim Timur the Lame (Tamerlane) conquered Persia, he did indeed make piles of heads of those that revolted, and he did kill many Christians and Buddhists. What is ignored, of course, is that he was attempting to re-establish the rule of the Khans (as in Genghis), that he used tactics practiced by invading hordes the world over, that most of his victims were actually Muslims, and that he made many European Christians, including the leaders of France and Spain, positively gleeful - as they saw him as saving Christians from the Turks. French presents him instead as a killer of non-Muslims who inspires acts of terror amongst such as the Boston bomber - himself named Tamerlane, and outright states that the naming of your child after him was equivalent to naming your child Stalin. The truth of the matter is some groups see him a conquering hero, and many from that region carry that name - much the way that many today carry the name David - a man too bloody from cutting off the tips of Philippine penises to be allowed by God to build the Jewish temple... or, for that matter William, as the name was popularized after the Norman conquest of Britain, characterized by a scorched earth policy, rape, plunder, and massacres of rebels. This sort of rhetorical rubbish and fallacious logic was evident throughout the talk, and leads me to my third point...
I know unmitigated horse hokey when I hear it. Robert Giffen in 1892 told us that there were three types of liars - liars, outrageous liars, and scientific experts - and that they made use of lies, outrageous lies, and statistics. In this case, French is a self-proclaimed scientific expert who attacks Islamic holy texts with a statistical method which, if applied to the OT, would most likely suggest that Christians were bloodthirsty hooligans intent on killing everyone not like them. (I say most likely because I am not a statistician, but I understand enough to know that, applied selectively, statistics gives selective answers). In addition, he makes use of charts and documents that are so manipulated as to be unacceptable to governmental agencies not in thrall to Anti-Muslim forces, which, of course, means to French that Muslims are keeping his "scholarship" from being taught. You see, when I hear a speaker claim that the word Jihad can't be used by the FBI, agree with the audience that the rapes in India are by Muslims and that the Federal government won't let us say "Christmas" anymore, claim that the first mass murder of Jews was by Muslims, and state that Universities don't teach critical thinking and that no religion department in the US takes a critical look at historical Islam or modern Islam, but only brags on the "Golden Age," well, I have to call BS.
In the end, I didn't say anything. There were no reporters, there were no protestors there (at least one left because of the locked doors), and the crown was in a bashing Islam for Jesus mood by the Q&A. I wasn't afraid to stand up, but I did understand that with no audience and no hope for a fair hearing, I would have essentially been narcissistic of me to stand up and try to take French down in front of an audience which is wholly on his side. Most of all, I was sad. I was looking at a room full to overflowing of aging baby boomers - white, well-off, self-assured, and entitled - who were terrified of losing power. They were afraid of losing their daughters to Muslim men, worried about loss of political power, scared that their religion would not win in the arena of ideas. They attitude was similar to that of children when they feel passed by in favor of a sibling, and they are pitching a fit that everyone can't see that they aren't loved enough, listened to enough, believed enough (even when they are wrong), and that the boogeyman is really real.
As far as I am concerned, there was absolutely no faith in Christ and his teachings on display last night. "Christian" and "Muslim" didn't really mean anything other than "Us" and "Them". There was no mention of praying for those we disagree with, no admonition to turn the other cheek, love those who despitefully use us, or submit to adversity as the will of God. Instead, there was simply anger, and fear, and distress, and animosity. If you wanted to see the antithesis of the fruit of the spirit, you had to look no further than Grassy Valley Baptist Church last night.
I will post the audio, if I can figure it out, though it is mostly out-of-context excerpts of the speech. It does give one room for thought, though!
No comments:
Post a Comment