An Unlikely Apologist for "24" and Real-Life Bauers

Emilio Karim Dabul, an Arab-American fan of "24," makes a compelling case for the show's depiction of terrorists in today's Opinion Journal. Here's a sample of his clear thinking:

Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.

And this is what makes "24" a compelling drama every week. Instead of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist, the show presents frighteningly real worst-case scenarios perpetrated by Osama bin Laden's followers. So CAIR thinks it's over the top for the terrorists in "24" to blow up Los Angeles with a nuke? Please, if bin Laden and his crew had nukes, most of us would be way too dead to argue over such points.

The entire essay is no longer available at Opinion Journal but can be read in its entirety here.

"How Dare You Suggest We Spread Our Religion by the Sword!"

From the International Herald Tribune:

Relatives of beheaded Iraqi say kidnappers demanded apology for pope Muslim comments

Associated Press

Published: October 12, 2006

MOSUL, Iraq Relatives of an Orthodox priest who was kidnapped and found beheaded three days later said Thursday that his captors had demanded his church condemn the pope's recent comments about Islam and pay a US$350,000 (€280,000) ransom.

More than 500 people attended a memorial service Thursday for father Amer Iskender in the northern city of Mosul after his decapitated body was found Wednesday evening in an industrial area of the city.

Iskender was a priest at the St. Ephrem Orthodox church in Mosul.

"He was a good man and we all shed tears for him," said Eman Saaur, a 45-year-old schoolteacher who said she attended Iskender's church regularly. "He was a man of peace."

Relatives, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said the unidentified group that seized Iskender on Sunday had demanded a ransom and that his church condemn a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI last month that ignited a wave anger throughout the Muslim world. In a speech at a German university the pope quoted a medieval text that characterized some of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman," declaring Islam was a religion spread by the sword.

Before Iskender was kidnapped, his relatives said, the church already had put up signs condemning the statement and calling for good relations between Christians and Muslims. The message was posted again, they said, after the priest's kidnappers made their demand.

"It was a tragedy," said Hazim Shaaiya, 60, who had come to the memorial service to pay respects. "Father Amer Iskender was a peaceful, kind religious man."

Relatives said the priest's oldest son had been in contact with the kidnappers on mobile telephones. He negotiated the ransom payment down to US$40,000 (€32,000) and had agreed to pay, but contact abruptly ceased Tuesday night.

Consistently Inconsistent

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal hits the nail on the head concerning the recent Islamic outrage in response to Pope Benedict XVI's quoting of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus (Don't settle for the sound bite. You can read the full text of the Pope's speech here.):

By their reaction to the pope's speech, some Muslim leaders showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity that is going to have to be solved by a debate within Islam. The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue--and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds--can begin.

The piece also touches upon a question that though perhaps politically incorrect, is nevertheless important. Does the Islamic doctrine of Allah preclude reasonable dialogue? Please note, this is not to inquire whether adherents to the Islamic faith are capable of being reasonable. Obviously, many are. But when they are, are they being consistent with the nature and character of Allah as they conceive of him? As the editorial notes, according to the Christian faith, "God is inseparable from reason" since, as Pope Benedict quoted from the first chapter of John's gospel, "In the beginning was the Word" (lit. logos, meaning "reason" or "word"). In Christian theology, logic and rationality are grounded in the nature of the eternal and triune God. God cannot act illogically or irrationally because he cannot act contrary to his own nature.

On the contrary, the Muslim vision of God is that he is so transcendent that he has no limitations whatsoever, not even those of his own nature. Thus, immutability or unchangeableness is not ascribed to Allah by Muslims. Addressing this point in their book Muslims and Christians at the Table: Promoting Biblical Understanding Among North American Muslims, Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka write:

This means that Allah is never bound to a decision that he once made. He cares nothing about being consistent. Therefore, he did not hesitate, when circumstances required, to change and rescind his earlier revelations, even when they contained specific commandments and instructions to believers. This created conflict for Muhammed, since he claimed to be transmitting a divine message that was inscribed upon tablets preserved in heaven, and which therefore should be eternal and unchangeable. But, as circumstances changed, Muhammed did not hesitate to assert that Allah had abrogated his earlier revelation and substituted another....Another aspect of the irrational nature of Allah's will is that he often makes offensive or misleading statements in order to "prove" men or stir up unbelievers to contradict the revealed word (Surah 74:31; 17:46). This is all utterly opposed to the Christian view of God as one who is immutable and true (pp. 102-103).

The authors proceed to explain how any attributes ascribed to Allah are regarded as descriptions of his absolute will rather than essential characteristics of his nature. The practical implications of this theology? "For the Muslim, there is no absolute truth in Allah or in ethics" (p. 103). Another consequence of this doctrine is, as one scholar whom the Pope quoted noted, that "[Allah's] will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality."

As much as some insist on separating terrorist acts from their perpetrators' religious beliefs, we need to realize that theological convictions have undeniable practical outworkings, a point clearly made in Sam Harris's recent L.A.Times opinion piece. Harris is right to claim that the the growing culture of death in the Muslim world is consonant with the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. Likewise, he is correct in calling the "war on terror" a fight "against a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise."

I cannot rid myself of the question. Who is being most consistent with the inconsistent deity of Islam - peace-loving, moderate Muslims or those willing to justify all manner of atrocities in his name?