don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

The other day, I was shocked to discover that my opinions on the nature of Islam were shared by Pat Robertson! I was not only shocked; I was revolted, horrified, discombobulated and mortified. In the spirit of the late Mayor Daley, I'll go so far as to say I was even embarrassed. How could this be? Am I losing my good sense, or did Robertson finally get something right?

The issue was Islam. Robertson asserted that Arab American Muslims support terrorist actions as an expression of their faith, that militant Islam is dedicated to the destruction of America and the killing of Jews and Christians (not to mention run of the mill pagans and infidels) around the world and that the Muslim holy book, the Koran, promotes violence. On February 25, Robertson cited the following as evidence of the violent nature of Islam:

1. "Jihad is a religious duty imposed by Muslim law for the spread of Islam ... Believers are under obligation to wage war against all unbelievers" (Encyclopedia Britannica.)
2. Muhammad said, "The best deed of man is to believe in Allah and his apostle ... The second best deed is to participate in Jihad in Allah's cause" (Hadith, Volume 125.)
3. "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. Seize them. Beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them" (Qur'an, Surah 9:5.)
4. "Fight them. Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace" (Qur'an, Surah 9:15.)
5. "O' ye that believe, take not Jews and Christians as your friends and protectors" (Qur'an, Surah 5:54.)
6. "Fight with them until there is no more persecution. Religion should only be for Allah" (Qur'an, Surah 8:39.)
7. "The punishment for those who war against Islam is execution or crucifixion. Cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides" (Qur'an, Surah 5:36.)
8. The Qur'an teaches that the world exists in two parts, Islam versus the infidels. Muslims are to forcibly convert all people.
9. Muhammad said, "The last hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them" (Mishkat, page 147.)

All this information is available at Robertson's 700 Club website. As Dave Barry would say, "I'm not making this up."

While I don't have data or other reliable evidence regarding whether all or most Arab American Muslims feel compelled to support terrorist actions (or seize, beleaguer, lie in wait for, fight, bring to disgrace, crucify and execute non-Muslims), it certainly seems many harbor variations on such ideas. Further, if the quotes from the Koran are accurate, then this holy book, like Robertson's holy book, does not seem to be a blueprint for world peace. I don't have a Koran conveniently nearby to check Robertson's quotes, but I have to assume he wouldn't just invent something as bizarre as these lines, if only because it's certain that others will double check to see if the Koran really has this kind of inflammatory rhetoric.

On the basis of the Koran quotes and lingering resentments from 9/11, the images of the late, non-lamented but still infamous Taliban in Afghanistan and those "death to the Great Satan" chanting Iranians, I found myself more or less in agreement with Robertson, at least to some extent. Who among us in free societies would not agree that Islam is being used (or misused, to be kind) to inspire a great deal of misery, for the faithful as well as the rest of us including Christian, Jew, pagan and infidel alike? Additionally, it's obvious that Islamic republics are hostile to freedom; Iran, Saudi Arabia and all the rest are widely acknowledged as repressive, intolerant of free speech, opposed to personal choice of religious beliefs and committed to integrating church and state as one. Since freedoms are crucial to wellness lifestyles, who would NOT agree with Robertson, insofar as these criticisms go? What other conclusions are possible?

Never mind, for the moment, that Robertson would almost surely prefer a Christian Republic to the secular version we have at the moment. A Christian theocracy of Robertson's design might rival the repressive Islamic regimes he so abhors. Life in Robertson's version of a biblical new world order would be something less than edifying for anyone not enamored with the vitriolic preacher's brand of religion, which is nearly as vehemently opposed to certain personal choices (abortion, gay rights, a free Internet) as the societies the mullahs enforce in Iran and elsewhere. Also, forget any quaint notions about keeping church and state separate if Robertson had his way with reshaping government in America.

Still, on just the matter of Islam, it seemed to me, at first blush, that I was aligned with Robertson. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe it was time for a reassessment -- which is what I wanted to address in the first place. Should one worry about a position when nearly all his ideological friends oppose it, and his mortal philosophical enemies favor it? No, of course not, but it is enough to make one uneasy.

Can you think of a recent case in which YOU felt strongly about a position, but found that those whom you would expect would share it did not, and vice-versa? How did this make you feel? Did you want to abandon your own position, or just think about it some more? I recommend the latter. In fact, my advice in such cases is to always remain open to possibilities, but never surrender a point of view just because you have to share it with the worst elements. Occasionally, even the bad guys make mistakes and find themselves in possession of a sensible position.

Be well, enjoy the quest and always look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of emotional intelligence. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell