IN THIS previous discussion, a reader asks:

How is [the pervasive sublimity of Muslim architecture – or, for that matter, poetry or spirituality] possible for a civilization that is “inherently false and evil”? 

This is an important question (although, for clarification, it is important to note that I never asserted that Islamic civilization was false or evil, but Islam itself.) This question is important not just in regard to Islam but to all false doctrines that flourish, produce admirable works and create some civilized order. Please see Kristor’s outstanding and succinct response. In a few paragraphs, he explains why evil must and always will coincide with the Good. He writes:

If Islam is false, then Muslim saints, poets and architects who approach sublimity are all the more remarkable, for they have won through to the Good at the heart of all things despite their false religion. It should hardly surprise us that there are Muslims who have scaled such heights. The falsity of their religion does not annihilate their appreciation or capacity for beauty or goodness. Nothing can persist unless it has some good and truth in it. So even Islam expresses some truths. And everyone, no matter how many false beliefs he may hold, must if he is to live perforce confront and deal with the world as it really is: so that the truth of things must press upon him, and shape him. Anything that is, then, may by being the handiwork of God be also for some creature the occasion of a theophany.

                                                                                       — Comments —

Kristor writes:

Thank you. I hate to cavil with your complimentary words, but I think you’ll be glad I now do so. You write: 

evil must and always will coincide with the Good. 

This might be interpreted to mean that everything that exists is an admixture of good and evil. But this is so only for creatures, and even then only for fallen creatures. God and the angels who have never fallen are not at all evil. It might also be interpreted to mean that evil is such only from one point of view, while from another it may be seen as good, so that good and evil are really only in the eye of the beholder. Not!   

You might want to say instead: 

all evil beings are necessarily somehow also good. 

Or: 

evil can exist only in a being that is somewhat good. 

I thought the Islamic tile image you appended to the entry was really cool. I note that it contains both the Star of David and the Cross, which are both symbols of the interpenetration of the mundane by the Divine, and thus of the sacramental nature of being as such. Some of the images of Muslim architecture that Peter S. linked to are staggeringly beautiful. Check out this one, my favorite, from the Alhambra; it is the best representation of the Divine fecundity in creation I have ever seen:

Laura writes:

Yes, thank you for the correction. I think my statement can also be interpreted to mean that every act is necessarily also evil. This is not true. There is pure good. There are deeds of perfection and works of unadulterated beauty.

I would change my statement in this particular context, in which I was referring to a body of beliefs, to read: evil must and always will coincide with the Good in any worldview that has attracted many followers. Kristor’s statement above is also true: All evil beings are necessarily somehow also good. Similarly, all good beings in a fallen world are necessarily somehow also evil.

Andrea writes:

If Islamic civilization is evil, how can it have created beautiful works like the Taj Mahal, Alhambra, etc? Not to mention the beautiful detailed work of Islamic ceramics, textiles, and Arabic calligraphy/writing? 

I would not look at Islamic civilization to find out. But look at the Islamic religion itself that is a political ideology as well as a complete roadmap for life for Muslims and seems to be a complete civilization. But culture is also a part of civilization and it is something that grows organically among a people. So, in so far as the Islamic religion is made of people, cultural artifacts have emerged. I believe that the beauty that emerged, did so in spite of Islam. The emergence of Sufism is an example of that. 

Why in spite of Islam? Because, to put it nicely, there is precious little inherent beauty in Islam. First of all, it is a faith that, followed to its natural conclusion, would destroy all books with the exception of the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sunna (the accepted traditions, actions, sayings of Mohammad). 

The Koran is, as Thomas Carlyle said, “a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long winded, entanglements; insupportable stupidity, in short, nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran…..endless repetitions of threats.” Try it, it’s true. It’s best (relative to itself) passages are “mixed with absurdities, bombast, unmeaning images, low sensuality (“your wife is soil…. go plow your wife” or close enough). It is a most wearisome book to read.” 

What about the life of Mohammad? The abrogations in the Koran are just him adjusting the revelations to suit his personal needs at a given time. We also know that he murdered poets who mocked him. -A limited source of inspiration here. 

The decorative arts in the Islamic world are similar to the Orient in general of which it is a part. The styles and beauties found in Islamic art are also found in China, India, Northeast Asia, Russian and ancient Persia and Byzantium. Notice also that the time of greatest art production under Islam occurs only during successful military expansion and conquest. 

The beauty is in spite of Islam not because of it – it’s because of the people under it, who like people in all times and ages, are sometimes gifted and at all times desire beauty just as they desire truth. 

Mercedes Duggar writes:

Thank you for highlighting Kristor’s excellent comments in the thread “How Can Islam be Inherently False?” today, and for starting that thoughtful discussion in the first place. Between The Thinking Housewife and View from the Right, there has recently been a wealth of food for thought on the subject of the continuing war between Christianity and Islam, our ancient enemy. Your contributions to this important topic are deeply appreciated!

Laura writes:

You are welcome. This is a subject I didn’t foresee writing about here, largely because Lawrence Auster and others do an excellent job of covering it, much better than I ever could. However, with the recent events surrounding Pastor Terry Jones, it is clear we have entered a new phase in the Islamicization of America. So even those of us who are less expert should not remain silent.

Gian writes from India:

Regarding your discussion about beauty in an Islamic context, it is significant to introduce the notion of Tao, following C.S. Lewis in his The Abolition of Man. Tao is the Moral Order inherent in the universe. All traditional moral systems (i.e., Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc.) embody the Tao, some more perfectly and others less perfectly. So a dogma may be entirely false, evil and even Satanic in inspiration but still objectively it embodies eternal Tao albeit very imperfectly. Certainly long-lasting traditions and societies are within Tao.

Now moral orders e.g. Communism and hyper-individualism of American type are not long-lasting and in this sense are much farther away from Tao than is an imperfect dogma like Islam or Hinduism.

This conception of C.S. Lewis helps us to understand why an evil dogma still can produce long-lasting stable civilization capable of great beauty.

Gian adds:

Also I would add that the people may behave better than what their dogma might indicate. For example, Islam allows polygamy and very free divorce for men. Yet most Muslim marriages are monogamous and lifelong. The divorce rate in a traditional Muslim society is perhaps lower than the divorce rate in America a hundred years ago (that I read somewhere -in your site?-was ten percent.)

Thus the Muslims actually practice what is practically a Christian marriage.

Similar examples can be multiplied.

Please follow and like us: