Instapundit's Odd Relativism About Religious Violence

I don't get it.

Instapundit has linked a couple of times to examples of threats of violence made by Islamists (or in this case, their dhimmi apologists), and then he remarks that it's only a matter if time before other religious groups do the same thing.  But, with very few exceptions, other religious groups don't.  It's pretty obvious that in the Western world, religiously inspired violence or threat of violence is almost completely owned by Islamic fundamentalists.  Not Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Bahai, Hindus, atheists or anybody else. 

Why the repeated question from Glenn? "Will other religious groups take the lesson that violence works?" Who's he talking about here?  Lutherans?  In May 2007, he wrote: "Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine."  No, other religious groups won't, because other religions aren't that intolerant and brittle, nor do their leaders sanction or incite such violence.  Not gonna happen.   

Asra Q. Nomani wrote an op-ed for the WSJ today about the decision by Random House to halt publication of a historical novel about Aisha, the Muslim prophet Muhammed's young bride (a child bride, actually). The novel's author, journalist Sherry Jones, came to admire the courage of Aisha.  Random House said they decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

Who started this brou-ha-ha?   "This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic."  Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin, to be exact.  Spellberg contacted Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in her classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, saying the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history."  She asked him to "warn Muslims", which he did, sending an e-mail to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students.  Things escalated from there, and within a few weeks, Random House withdrew  the book, citing "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."  The real threat here seems to be from Spellberg, Amanullah and Random House, none of whom seem to respect freedom of speech or the tradition of historical fiction. 

As Nomani writes in the WSJ:

"The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world....This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way."

Comments

[Tennwriter]

I read Instapundit's defense. He's right in an absolute sense. Most anyone and anything can be corrupted.

In a practical sense, in the real world, you and Robert Spencer are correct.

Instapundit states he fears the evolution of memetics, and that a doctrine will be found. Well, let me say that his precious secularists with their Darwinian doctrine are far closer to that corruption he fears than are Christians.

So, from Insty's arguement, we ought to keep a close and careful eye on secularists because y'know, its only a matter of time. Its been said that Timothy McVeigh was an atheist. How long until they follow him?

If you dismiss that threat as silly, then how much more quickly must you dismiss the worry that Glenn suggests?

More seriously, this is an attack on Christians by an urbane secularist. It reveals his stance which is too close to the 'religion of any kind is the problem' silliness.

[Mirco]

Glen is right on the memetic evolution. There is no reason the core tenets of the Christianity or Buddhism will change, but the spineless of the powers-to-be (state or big company like Random House) will give an incentive to grow the level of violence used.
The use of the violence is not, for itself, wrong. E.G. If the state don't protect the people, the people will start to organize to protect themselves. Against the Muslims and against the State if it is in the between (because the state find easier to disarm the victims and not the aggressors).

Christianity have the concept of self-preservation and self-defence (there is a line, or two, in the gospel about selling the mantle and buying a sword).
And when the groups understand that the state will not protect them, they will start to protect themselves. But I doubt this will be done with proper procedure and following the books.

A spineless government, that is unable to impose his "monopoly" on force, call for private groups (religious groups, political groups, economic groups, ethnic groups and any overlapping group) to start using force to defend themselves first (sometimes reacting to an attack and sometimes preempting an attack).

Violence from a fundamentalist Christian of Jew or Sikh or Hindu groups could be simply be the destruction of private property. Jesus whipped away the merchants from the Temple, without injuring or killing anyone. Mortal people could be not so skilled, and things could go out of control. Then reactions could happen from both the sides.

[miss kelly]

Thanks for your comments, Tennwriter and Mirco. I realize that Glenn was also slamming Random House for their cave-in, but it was a slap at Christians (again). Undeserved, I'd say.