Friday, July 4, 2025

What Piers Morgan Doesn’t Understand About Biblical Justice

By Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam 3 July 2025 Ever since October 7, 2023, in every debate on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Piers Morgan opens with the refrain: "Israel has a right and indeed an obligation to defend itself." To appear balanced, he adds that the only question that troubles him is “what is a proportional response?”—a question he never answers. Meanwhile, he energetically defends Israel’s actions and refuses to label its onslaught as genocide, offering the surreal justification: “Israel has the power to kill all the Palestinians but hasn’t done it.” He ignores the fact that Israel, like the proverbial chef boiling a frog, knows that the temperature must be raised slowly. An overt, immediate genocide would rouse the world’s conscience. A slow-motion one, couched in the language of self-defence and precision warfare by the “most moral army”, slips scrutiny. This rhetorical dance—affirming Israel’s right to self-defence while feigning moral perplexity—obscures a much older and clearer moral framework. That framework is found not in geopolitical talking points or selectively applied humanitarian law, but in the very scriptures that form the ethical foundation of Western civilisation. The Principle Is Clear: Measured Reciprocity Both the Torah and the Qur'an enshrine a universal rule of justice: you may retaliate, but only to the extent of the harm done to you—never more. This is not a vague ideal; it is a binding legal principle. "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" —Exodus 21:23–25 "O you who believe! Qisās (just retaliation) is prescribed for you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman..." —Qur'an 2:178 Contrary to modern misreading, this Qur'anic verse does not endorse class-based justice. It limits retaliation to exact equivalence—no escalation, no collective punishment, no innocent blood. It was a restraint on the tribal instinct to retaliate blindly and disproportionately. Not Transitional—but Timeless Some argue this ethic was transitional, suitable for a primitive age, but now outdated. The text says otherwise. The Qur’an affirms: "In the Law of Equality, there is life for you, O people of understanding." —Qur’an 2:179 This is moral deterrence and legal pragmatism. If your soldiers are killed, you may target enemy soldiers, not their children. If civilians are killed, a proportionate civilian response is permitted—but only to the degree of harm inflicted. If you exceed that limit, you become the aggressor. When Legal Justice Fails, Proportional Retaliation Applies The divine law is also realistic. In tribal or inter-state conflict, where no court can deliver the guilty, retaliation must be allowed—but still within strict bounds. If your civilians are killed and the perpetrators are protected by their community, you may strike back against their civilians—not out of vengeance, but to impose restraint. This may offend modern liberal sensibilities. Yet it is the only moral logic available when legal redress is impossible. It is not ideal—but it is better than lawless, disproportionate warfare. And this is precisely where modern states fail. Israel cannot bomb apartment blocks in Gaza because Hamas killed civilians in Israel. That is not proportionality; it is tribal vengeance of the kind both the Torah and Qur’an forbid. Nor can it justify killing thousands to capture or punish a few. Justice is not a numbers game. It is a matter of equivalence and moral targeting. Modern Hypocrisy vs. Scriptural Clarity When a powerful state kills hundreds of civilians, it is called “collateral damage.” When a militia kills civilians in response to that collateral damage, it is called “terrorism.” This is the moral double standard that sustains endless war. The scriptures are consistent: • No punishment beyond the crime • No killing of innocents • No escalation • No immunity for power But in practice, we see none of this. Siege tactics, airstrikes on schools, indiscriminate destruction—carried out in the name of “defence,” violating every principle of divine law. If the Torah and the Qur’an were heeded, these atrocities would end. Instead, power rewrites morality, and media personalities like Piers Morgan sanitise it. The Piers Morgan Charade: Condemnation as a Gatekeeping Ritual Morgan’s Favourite Trap Question Is: “Do You Condemn The Hamas Attack Of October 7?” If the guest refuses to give a simple “yes,” Morgan berates them, implying they support terrorism. Hamas must be called a terrorist group, never a resistance movement. That’s the ritual. No deviation permitted. It never bothers him that while Hamas reportedly killed 1,100 on one day, the IDF has killed Palestinians regularly—in far larger numbers. Entire neighbourhoods are flattened in periodic “lawn mowing operations.” Nor does he consider that Hamas acted during a narrow, one-time breach in Israel’s border defence—while Israel has the ability to strike Gaza at will, with drones, tanks, and F-16s, every single day. Once the guest condemns Hamas, the moral equation is complete. Israel’s assault becomes a just “response.” Then comes the most cynical line of argument: “Didn’t Hamas know what the Israeli response would be?” The logic is simple: Palestinians provoked their own slaughter. The real villain is not the hand that bombed the hospital, but the one that dared resist. Israeli spokespeople bolster this by quoting Hamas leaders who referenced Algeria’s long, bloody war of independence. “See? They want to be martyrs,” they say. “We’re just helping them.” Piers Morgan choreographs this entire charade while claiming to be fair. But it is not journalism. It is moral theatre—a scripted ritual in which the powerful are always justified, and the powerless are always to blame. The Real Question Isn’t “What Is Proportional?” The real question is: Are you punishing the guilty—and only the guilty—to the degree of their crime? And if the guilty are out of reach, are you retaliating in a morally sanctioned, equivalent manner? If the answer is no, then you are not defending yourself. You are committing a new crime. Conclusion: Justice Isn’t Complicated—It’s Just Inconvenient Both the Torah and the Qur’an provide a moral framework rooted in proportionality, restraint, and justice. When states abandon that framework, they do not become defenders of justice. They become aggressors wearing its mask. And when media figures like Piers Morgan perpetuate that illusion, they do not inform the public. They anaesthetise it. This is not complicated. It’s just unpopular to say when your allies are the ones breaking the law. But the truth is no less true because it is unwelcome. And justice does not vanish because powerful people talk over it. ---- A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer Ahmed is an independent researcher and Quran-centric thinker whose work bridges faith, reason, and contemporary knowledge systems. Through a method rooted in intra-Quranic analysis and scientific coherence, the author has offered ground-breaking interpretations that challenge traditional dogma while staying firmly within the Quran’s framework. His work represents a bold, reasoned, and deeply reverent attempt to revive the Quran’s message in a language the modern world can test and trust. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/piers-morgan-biblical-justice/d/136058 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism

No comments:

Post a Comment