Response to David Wood’s Argument on the Muslim “Strategy”
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In a recent debate with the cocksure and outrageously honest apologist, Daniel Haqiqatjou, the sly provocateur, David Wood, made reference to a conspiratorial anti-Islamic trope. He charged Muslims, following in the steps of the Prophet Muhammad (s), or so he claims, with a secret plot to preach tolerance until such a time as to gain enough strength to supplant the existing social structure and impose Islam upon all.
Without missing a step, Haqiqatjou rejoined that every group in history has done the same thing.
Now it is far from obvious that the Prophet Muhammad (s) is guilty of Wood’s charge, nor that, even if the charge were true that the Prophet was not justified, nor that most Muslims today intend on a similar course of action. But this is not the subject of this post. Rather, I’d like to state what I would’ve added to Haqiqatjou’s responder in order to elicit perhaps a more visceral fashion.
I would’ve asked David, “Wait a second, aren’t you a Protestant?”
“Yes,” he would no doubt reply.
“Well isn’t it the case that Luther also preached tolerance in the early days of the Protestant reformation, when his position is weak, but later moved to actively persecute Catholics and even call for armed rebellion? Isn’t it the case that in the beginning, he urged the more radical wing of his followers to allow Catholics to take the eucharist with wine alone, but later Protestant principalities, with his approval, gave Catholics a few days to consider conversion to his doctrine and to either convert, leave, or suffer death? They were not even given the courtesy of dhimmitude! Luther approved of the state seizure of Catholic Church property and allowed princes to keep the lion’s share of it. His words lead to the Peasant’s Revolt that led to probably over 100,000 people dying, and the complete social upheaval of northern Germany. In fact, Luther was not alone. He and other prominent protestant reformers, like John Calvin, considered belief in adult baptism to be a capital offense and recommended the active persecution of the Anabaptists.
In fact, Calvin himself participated in the trial and execution of the unitarian Michael Servetus in Geneva. When he received ink-filled blows of outraged criticism from the pen of tolerant-preaching humanists and reformers, Calvin ordered his most able student to write a passionate defense of religious intolerance and the execution of heretics. Protestants almost everywhere set up active bodies akin to the Inquisition to this end. Protestant principalities strictly monitored and censored the printing presses after acquiring power from Catholics, and had their own index of banned books akin to the Catholic Church’s control that had preceded them.
It is therefore ironic, sir, for you to accuse others of that which your forebears have certainly done. Yet, if you condemn your forbear’s intolerance, on what basis do you do so? If you do not follow your theological forbears on such an important issue central to social organization, who exactly do you follow? Furthermore, how is it that you take the doctrines of such men and hold them to be moral exemplars when they demonstrate a mortal moral failing by your own account? For surely, it is not trivial to deny a man his right to free speech nor to advocate for the execution of countless Christians, nor to have your words lead to the Thirty Years War, one of the bloodiest conflicts in European history. How is it that you blame the Prophet Muhammad (s) for that which your forebears did more clearly, more ruthlessly, and without remorse?”
Perhaps Wood would answer that he follows Jesus, as he did many times in his debates with Haqiqatjou.
But that is hardly a response. Everyone claims to be following Jesus Christ – whose interpretation is Wood following? Indeed Jesus did not lead a state or ever gain the upper hand in political power for us to know how he would have acted and we can only, therefore, extrapolate theories. What is the practical example?
Perhaps the humble martyrs of the early church? But again, these were never tempted with worldly power as Christ was upon the mountain top. Indeed when a few generations later their heirs were put to the test, they became violent as soon as they gained power, not just against pagans but also against Christian sects deemed heretical. They engaged in book-burning to the extent that we have almost no extant literature from these so-called heretical sects. Virtually everything we know about them is from heresiology, refutations, casual mention in various passages, and so forth.
What of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Well, surely Wood, being a protestant, regards them are utterly corrupt institutions with abysmal track records of their own.
Would Wood then admit to taking liberalism as his moral guideline? But even in his liberal forebears, Wood will not find a comforting bedrock.
The libertine French intellectuals and philosophers leading up to the French Revolution preached tolerance, but once they had power they engaged in the reign of terror in which all of their political opponents were mass executed even on very spurious evidence. One of their main targets was the Catholic Church and her extensive lands, but indeed they showed disdain for all Christians – Protestant and Catholic alike.
As for the American revolutionaries, the founding fathers had already deliberated the question of a Muslim take-over and were entirely open to it. They debated whether a Muslim should ever be allowed to become president or if it should be a constitutional requirement that a Christian remain president. They concluded that if a Muslim were to ever become president, it would mean entail one of two scenarios.
The first scenario is that the majority of Americans believed that the Muslim was a trustworthy man, in which case there was no reason to restrict the people’s will.
The second is that the majority of America had become Muslim and the people are simply voting in someone representative of their views – in which case, once again, there is no need to constitutionally restrict the will of the people.
The first scenario proves that the founding fathers believed that it was entirely possible for Muslims to be productive and well-respected members of American society. So why doesn’t Wood? The second scenario shows that the founding fathers, in keeping with their principle of respect for the sovereignty of the individual, had no problem in principle with the majority of Americans accepting Islam. Therefore, Wood should not fault Muslims for a secret strategy using these deceitful scare tactics. Rather, he should welcome Muslims to the free market of ideas and allow us to preach and win over the majority of Americans to our side.
