Thursday, December 17, 2015

"Only Islam can defeat Islam!"

According to Keith Parsons:

What is also needed is a new and compelling narrative, one that can compete with and defeat the narrative of ISIS and other hateful ideologies…What kind of idealistic message is needed? Well, obviously it must be Islamic. Only Islam can defeat Islamist fanaticism. - See more at:

So a militant atheist like Parsons thinks only Islam can defeat Islamist fanaticism. That's an ironic concession from an atheist. By his own admission, atheism can't defeat jihadism, Only a better version of Islam can.

And Parsons is half right: it takes a powerful religion to defeat a powerful religion. That's because religion has a fundamental appeal that atheism does not. You can't beat something with nothing. 

And that means only Christianity can defeat Islam. A superior religious ideology. Better ideas. And, especially, grace. 

Even if some Muslims found atheism persuasive, that only cuts Islam at the root, without planting something better in its place. 

Of course, that doesn't negate the need for a military defense. 


  1. Amen.

    Richard Dawkins is more clear headed than Parsons in that he reportedly has said, “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.
    [alleged source "Scandal and schism leave Christians praying for a ‘new Reformation’" by Ruth Gledhill, The Times, 06 April 2010.]

    Charles Darwin is known to have promoted Christian missionary activities because of how they helped civilize formerly savage (often cannibalistic) people groups.

    I also agree that moderate Islam can help fight off radical Islam (both ideologically and militarily). But there will always be the seeds of radical Islamic theology in moderate forms of Islam since any Muslim could always strive to be more consistent in following the example of Muhammad who is considered by Muslims to be the best model of human righteousness. Even Qur'an only Muslims could decide to start reading the hadith and conclude that the general picture given of Muhammad in those traditions have historical cores which he can mimic. Thus leading to a more terroristic Jihadist theology.

  2. You may (or may not) be interested to know that atheist Jonathan Pearce wonders whether speaking the truth about Islam is counter-productive:

    "In other words, I am saying that it is possibly worth shelving the truth in favour of social cohesion, and finding some sort of solution to the problems faced in the modern world. This is a moral dilemma in seen in terms of consequentialism; that truth has extrinsic value here, and if it causes or maintains problems, then it can have a negative moral value.

    "Going around talking about the dangers of Islam, as true as this might be, is dangerous to solving the issues of the dangers of Islam, if you will. I am condemning the liberal Muslims, through guilt by association, to whom we should be so strongly appealing in order to pave a cohesive way out of this political, social and theological mire.

    "Perhaps, I am therefore saying, it is worth me stepping back from the Islamic debate in order to reassess."