"Submission Complete" At Harvard: Quranic Teachings Promoted As Epitome Of Justice

tvr's picture
Submitted by tvr on Tue, 2013-12-10 04:33

Earlier this year the US' pre-eminent school of law posted a verse of the Qur'an at the entrance of its law faculty.

The verse reads:

“O ye who believe!

Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses

To Allah, even as against
Yourselves, or your parents,

Or your kin, and whether

It be (against) rich or poor:

For Allah can best protect both.”

Regardless of the completeness or accuracy of the quote (the verse, Surah 4:135, is truncated and not properly translated; the full and more accurate translation may be read here: http://quran.com/4/135), the problem with it is that it invokes "Allah" as the source and arbiter of justice and rights and the Surah from which it comes is one that elaborates on what Allah's "justice" involves, commanding that:

- "humiliating punishment" will be given to anyone who is not a "believer" or who "disobeys Allah" [4:151 and 4:14 respectively], including anyone who does not share their wealth [4:37] or flaunts it [4:38];
- that under the law "men are in charge of women" [4:34];
- Allah will "drive them into a Fire" all who "disbelieve" whereby "Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment." [4:56];
- of apostates to "seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper" [4:89];
- for believers not to make non-believers allies [4:139-140];
- that one may not charge interest on loans [4:161]

Harvard Law's entrance wall has just three quotes, being the three considered by the faculty as the most universally applicable of the 150 that were submitted for consideration. The other two are “An unjust law is no law at all” [St Augustine] and “To no one will We sell, to none will We deny or defer, right or justice” [from the Magna Carta].

The ironic fact is that Harvard (and the world by following it's lead) is in effect selling, denying and deferring what remains of enlightened Western notions of rights and justice for Quranic teachings that are (by Western standards) wholly wrong and unjust.

What the West needs right now is for influential institutions like Harvard to promote the idea that justice is based in objective reality, not in mysticism, and how only objective law - that is, law derived from an objective code of ethics - can ever assign just and proper effects to appropriate actors in a societal setting, and, not to promote any ideas that are in contradiction with this basic principle.

"Non-objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves." - Ayn Rand, “Vast Quicksands, The Objectivist Newsletter, July 1963, p25

[Note: edit corrections made 29/12/13]

"Submission Complete" At Oxford Too

tvr's picture

The world's most prestigious debating society, the Oxford Union, moved earlier this year that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" in what it hailed as a momentous and historic debate.

In arguing for the affirmative, political editor of the UK version of The Huffington Post and Muslim himself, Mehdi Hasan, swept the floor with his powerful oratory (see first video below). The opposition was too ignorant or meek to counter, Daniel Johnson excepted, but by his conceding that Islam could be a religion of peace, handed the affirmative side their premise (see second video). The Union thus found in favor of Islam's being a "religion of peace" with 286 Yeses and 168 Nos. 

What is notable in Hasan's delivery is that he argues using duplicitous terms while misrepresenting the facts. Examples of the former are his use of the terms "innocents", which non-Muslims typically take to mean non-criminals according to Western notions of justice and law but which Muslims use as meaning Muslims and Dhimmi (i.e., those who are compliant with Quranic notions of justice and law), and "Islam" to mean "peace" when it actually means submission ("salaam" is the Arabic word for peace). An example of the latter is his reference to a Gallup poll claiming that it reported that 93% of the 50,000 Muslims interviewed in 35 countries "rejected" the 9/11 attacks as being unjustified, when in actual fact the poll found that 38.6% of Muslims believed that the 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially"). 

The majority of Muslims in the world do not engage in public violence, but what of it? There were/are many "non-violent" Nazi and Communist Party members also - one could argue the majority, but one would not use that as one's argument for those ideologies being inherently peaceful. Islam, insofar as the ideology is adopted and applied politically, as the Qur'an instructs it should be, is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of submission, as its name (properly translated) advertises. Peace may be Islam's stated aim, but in a world of mostly non-Muslims, peace is demonstrably not Islam's effect. Even in Muslim majority countries there is demonstrably no peace. And even if the whole world were all perfectly Muslim, what price would have to be paid in order to secure Islam's "peace"? If everyone were dead there too would be "peace". 

There is only one path to peace: rationality.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.