As Fox News was covering Arafat's burial this morning, a guest commentator began to compare the Palestinian view of Arafat to how Americans view George Washington. Many British called him a terrorist, he said. Then he began to bring in the name of Ronald Reagan. That's when E. D. Hill pounced, and firmly and passionately rejected any such comparisons.
As I reflected on this incident--and we have heard many other similar attempts to compare terrorists to Patriots--I have to wonder, does the Islamic worldview actually permit someone to, with sincerity, compare the life of George Washington to that of Yassar Arafat? In Islamic ethics do uniformed soldiers engaging in warfare exist on the same moral plane with those who order the strapping of explosives onto brainwashed teenagers and exploding them into a crowd of old men, women, children, and babies?
I don't think so. I think there may be another explanation. I think our enemies are attempting to exploit our own moral weakness, namely, our rejection of an absolute standard of truth and justice, and our willingness to see truth, including ethical truth, as a relative thing. Each woman is able to choose if killing her unborn baby is "right for her." Unmarried, unrelated people living together are called "roommates" if that is what they prefer, or a "family" if that is what they call themselves.
So why not call people who blow up busloads of school children, "Freedom fighters" and American soldiers, "Terrorists?" On what grounds can a moral relativist object?
As I reflected on this incident--and we have heard many other similar attempts to compare terrorists to Patriots--I have to wonder, does the Islamic worldview actually permit someone to, with sincerity, compare the life of George Washington to that of Yassar Arafat? In Islamic ethics do uniformed soldiers engaging in warfare exist on the same moral plane with those who order the strapping of explosives onto brainwashed teenagers and exploding them into a crowd of old men, women, children, and babies?
I don't think so. I think there may be another explanation. I think our enemies are attempting to exploit our own moral weakness, namely, our rejection of an absolute standard of truth and justice, and our willingness to see truth, including ethical truth, as a relative thing. Each woman is able to choose if killing her unborn baby is "right for her." Unmarried, unrelated people living together are called "roommates" if that is what they prefer, or a "family" if that is what they call themselves.
So why not call people who blow up busloads of school children, "Freedom fighters" and American soldiers, "Terrorists?" On what grounds can a moral relativist object?
Comments