What difference does it make that there are so many nice Muslims? Well, some of the nicest people I have ever met were Muslims. They must be appreciated for the fine human beings they are. Yet, their goodness cannot save their ideology. It cannot save who Mohammed was, for he was a violent, bloodied warrior. From the grave he encourages not just an "eye for an eye" or the segregation of Muslims from inferior non-believers. No, from the grave, his and Allah's words and deeds encourage, command, even demand that Muslims offensively spread their ideology and treat non-believers as third class citizens or garbage to be destroyed. The Muslims we love do not follow these edicts because of the goodness in their hearts, (as well as because their doctrine, in its unique "Mecca/Medina" duplicity, says they can be peaceful for a time). But, so many other Muslims do obey the call to violence. Most Germans who joined Nazi party were nice and never hurt anyone, but the ideas behind Naziism were still evil.
Pick your Creator over the eons: Yahweh, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha; they neither committed nor commanded violence toward others. Mohammed killed 100s & commanded more subjugating and killing of non-believers for eternity until all on Earth worship Allah, i. e. god as he defined it (The deceiver, Q 3:54, who hates unbelievers, Q 30:45). In verse Q 3:45, some argue that the word is not deceiver, but planner. That "If this is for a good purpose, it is good; and if this is for a bad purpose, it is bad." However, the ends do not justify the means (a typical Islamic principle) and the arabic word makr still carries "secretive" overtones. More important, there are many other verses about the benefits of deceitfulness in the Trilogy.
1600 years ago, every major religious group around world had adopted a peaceful creator or prophet. Then came the violent supremacist haters of unbelievers, Mo & Allah ruining earth. The biggest problem for Islam is not just its violence, but it duplicity. Islam has two things to say about everything except its own supremacy. Each Muslim picks the truth that works in the moment: Mecca/peace or Medina/violence. Thus, they get to play God. It's blasphemous.
In many ways, Islam can be summarized as follows: 1) "I am righteous, you are not. I make temporary alliances with lesser infidels to kill greater infidels, then reassess those earlier alliances," and 2) The scales of justice: "If I kill one person, it is very bad...but if I also save two people's lives, I will still go to paradise." So much for aspiring to perfection, peace and God's gracious accepting love. Too much judgment. Too much focus on offensive politics. if Muslims do not like the violence, they should reject Mohammed and his "Jihad in the way of Allah." To those who learn of Mohammed's violence and do not reject him, know you are contributing to the problem and you will be dealt with by the non-Islamist world accordingly.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Huff Post & Khan: Truth About Islam
In "The Media Owes Us The Truth About #Islam", huff.to/22pegj5, Ahmed Khan tries to make the case that Islam is peace and the journalists are liars for not telling the singular truth. The problem is that Islam has two things to say about so many things, the Meccan (peaceful) and the Medinan (more frequently violent). How can the truth be one thing when both are true? And that is the real problem.
People need a singular, peaceful vision as a sacred guide. All people (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc.) are capable of great good and horrific evil. They seem to be affected on the margins by what they hold as sacred and holy in their minds. Why would the world be accepting of the only prophet who was violent and sanctioned violence in Medina, even if he also did and said peaceful things? Even Hitler did some good things. That does not make his ideas good! Showing that there were some Germans who joined the Nazi party, but were peaceful and did not like the killing of Jews does not prove that Hitler and the Nazis were good. And, importantly, violence by Muslims against other Muslims does not offer any supportive argument for Islam either. To me, it just proves the point that the violent Islamists seem to have the moral high groud in Islamic faith because the text supports what they do. So do Mohammed's actions.
Common people cannot jump through such complicated interpretational hoops to prove Islam is peaceful when the simple text seems so clearly violent. Peace-loving Muslims need to understand this. Remaing part of Islam and trying to save it is like being a German and trying to save the Nazi party: by staying with it, you become part of the problem when you should be part of the solution.
People need a singular, peaceful vision as a sacred guide. All people (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc.) are capable of great good and horrific evil. They seem to be affected on the margins by what they hold as sacred and holy in their minds. Why would the world be accepting of the only prophet who was violent and sanctioned violence in Medina, even if he also did and said peaceful things? Even Hitler did some good things. That does not make his ideas good! Showing that there were some Germans who joined the Nazi party, but were peaceful and did not like the killing of Jews does not prove that Hitler and the Nazis were good. And, importantly, violence by Muslims against other Muslims does not offer any supportive argument for Islam either. To me, it just proves the point that the violent Islamists seem to have the moral high groud in Islamic faith because the text supports what they do. So do Mohammed's actions.
Common people cannot jump through such complicated interpretational hoops to prove Islam is peaceful when the simple text seems so clearly violent. Peace-loving Muslims need to understand this. Remaing part of Islam and trying to save it is like being a German and trying to save the Nazi party: by staying with it, you become part of the problem when you should be part of the solution.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Islamophobe-a-phobia
The fear of Islam seen throughout our planet is a logical response to decades of Islam's increasingly violent religious bigotry compounded by so many people's inability to understand, accept, and address the issue. Fear of Islamophobia is causing those who do not understand Islam to defend it and even attack those who do not like the violence Islam successfully creates.
Muslims are the ones on the offense, especially since the re-formation of the Califate in 2014 by ISIS. To assert that millions of people are errant Islamophobes is labelling, exceedingly arrogant, dangerous, and either uneducated or deceitful.
Muslims are the ones on the offense, especially since the re-formation of the Califate in 2014 by ISIS. To assert that millions of people are errant Islamophobes is labelling, exceedingly arrogant, dangerous, and either uneducated or deceitful.
If you have not read the trilogy of Islam, surely you must. Otherwise, you have absolutely no business forming any opinion on the world's biggest problem. Plainly, these books are disgustingly violent, bigoted, and duplicitous, as was Mohammed who the books say was the perfect Mulim and must be imitated.
Islam is not a race or a person. It is a set of ideas. Muslims do not define Islam. Islam is defined by the words of the Quran and the Sunnah. Islam defines what it is to be a Muslim. If you are not a Muslim and you find the violence prescribed throughout the Islamic trilogy offensive and non-pluralistic, then stop defending or apologizing for it. If you are a Muslim and you do not like what you read in the Quran and Sunnah, find a new path and a new prophet. To continue the charade that you are a Muslim when you do not like the violence prescribed by Islam and exemplified by Mohammed is to be part of the world's biggest problem. To remain a Muslim or sympathetic with Islam is to show either ignorance or malicious intent.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
The Responsible Choice for Muslims
Does it make sense to belong to the only major group of people in world history commanded to imitate a violent prophet who proscribed violence toward non-believers? It is a testimony to the goodness in people that so many Muslims are peaceful and wonderful persons, especially in light of the violent and not-so-wonderful example set by Mohammed whom the Quoran commands Muslims to imitate 91 different times.
It is every Muslim's responsibility to read their doctrine: the Quoran, Hadith, and Sira, and ask themselves, "Is Mohammed really the ideal person I wish to aspire to be like more than any other?" If not, perhaps you should find another doctrine and/or prophet. If so, remain with Islam; the world will know what you aspire to deep within.
So, what will it be? Wait! Before you answer and take true responsibility for your choice, have you really read them?
It is every Muslim's responsibility to read their doctrine: the Quoran, Hadith, and Sira, and ask themselves, "Is Mohammed really the ideal person I wish to aspire to be like more than any other?" If not, perhaps you should find another doctrine and/or prophet. If so, remain with Islam; the world will know what you aspire to deep within.
So, what will it be? Wait! Before you answer and take true responsibility for your choice, have you really read them?
Saturday, March 19, 2016
My Ideal Presidential Candidate
My Ideal Presidential Candidate
The choices for president this election year are disturbingly weak. Each seems confused in some way, with one or more aspects of their approach and personality being deeply wrong. The problem is not that the country needs someone with a new or old vision of what to do or the charisma to force those ideas through. America does not need a king or tyrant. What the U.S. needs is a leader who will remind us of who we are and who will patiently but forcefully encourage our elected leaders to govern.
With that said, my ideal candidate will run on the following platform:
1. Stop pulling power into the office of president and away from the states and Congress. Go to Congress and push them, unceasingly, to do their jobs. Encourage them in every way to find common ground, to simplify government for the people...to legislate. If Congress refuses to act responsibly then go to the governors of the states to ask them if they want this responsibility in their hands through constitutional amendments. With all that encouragement to legislate, then if Congress still cannot act responsibly, for example on immigration reform, healthcare, or education, maybe a supermajority of states would like to take that authority down to the state level through a constitutional amendment. The federal government would cede those powers and move to a role of facilitator, encouraging incubation of ideas and policies at the state level, as well as helping states to form coalitions to work together when their policies are consistent with one another.
2. Stop picking on the Muslims (Donald!), but be more clear that there is a problem with the written doctrine of Islam and Sharia law (all the rest of you!). Islam is an idea, not a person. It's writings are truly, and widely, contrary to our constitution and cannot be tolerated in the United States. As painful as it is to admit, Islam, as a doctrine and as a nation that follows its word, is at war with us. How to address the politics of Islam is one topic in great need of attention from a united and purposeful Congress.
3. Lift up the American people! Whether you liked Ronald Reagan or not, there is no denying that Americans deeply enjoyed and vigorously responded to his reminders that the hard work, imagination and ingenuity of everyday Americans has always been what made our nation successful. Americans deserve to be reminded of this regularly. Since he left office, our nation's focus has been more on identifying victim groups who need more help. We have become a nation of victims looking for more benefits and rights for our own victim-groups. Surely there are real victims, as there are those who are physically or mentally unable to work. It seems that, today, these people do not get as much support as they should because what resources we have to give are shared among so many who are not so put upon, but actually could be proud, working contributors to our nation's success. To tempt those able-bodied and able-minded people to seek faceless federal handouts instead of building local relationships with individuals who would encourage them to work and contribute is to play a part in stealing their dignity.
So that is it. Encourage the American system of governance to work the way it was intended, begin a discussion about the problematic ideas in Islam and what to do about them, and restore the American people by reminding them that their joy and their nation's success will come from contributing, not from taking.
So who is the candidate that will say these things AND truly pursue them once in office? Is it too late for someone in the running to adjust their message?
The choices for president this election year are disturbingly weak. Each seems confused in some way, with one or more aspects of their approach and personality being deeply wrong. The problem is not that the country needs someone with a new or old vision of what to do or the charisma to force those ideas through. America does not need a king or tyrant. What the U.S. needs is a leader who will remind us of who we are and who will patiently but forcefully encourage our elected leaders to govern.
With that said, my ideal candidate will run on the following platform:
1. Stop pulling power into the office of president and away from the states and Congress. Go to Congress and push them, unceasingly, to do their jobs. Encourage them in every way to find common ground, to simplify government for the people...to legislate. If Congress refuses to act responsibly then go to the governors of the states to ask them if they want this responsibility in their hands through constitutional amendments. With all that encouragement to legislate, then if Congress still cannot act responsibly, for example on immigration reform, healthcare, or education, maybe a supermajority of states would like to take that authority down to the state level through a constitutional amendment. The federal government would cede those powers and move to a role of facilitator, encouraging incubation of ideas and policies at the state level, as well as helping states to form coalitions to work together when their policies are consistent with one another.
2. Stop picking on the Muslims (Donald!), but be more clear that there is a problem with the written doctrine of Islam and Sharia law (all the rest of you!). Islam is an idea, not a person. It's writings are truly, and widely, contrary to our constitution and cannot be tolerated in the United States. As painful as it is to admit, Islam, as a doctrine and as a nation that follows its word, is at war with us. How to address the politics of Islam is one topic in great need of attention from a united and purposeful Congress.
3. Lift up the American people! Whether you liked Ronald Reagan or not, there is no denying that Americans deeply enjoyed and vigorously responded to his reminders that the hard work, imagination and ingenuity of everyday Americans has always been what made our nation successful. Americans deserve to be reminded of this regularly. Since he left office, our nation's focus has been more on identifying victim groups who need more help. We have become a nation of victims looking for more benefits and rights for our own victim-groups. Surely there are real victims, as there are those who are physically or mentally unable to work. It seems that, today, these people do not get as much support as they should because what resources we have to give are shared among so many who are not so put upon, but actually could be proud, working contributors to our nation's success. To tempt those able-bodied and able-minded people to seek faceless federal handouts instead of building local relationships with individuals who would encourage them to work and contribute is to play a part in stealing their dignity.
So that is it. Encourage the American system of governance to work the way it was intended, begin a discussion about the problematic ideas in Islam and what to do about them, and restore the American people by reminding them that their joy and their nation's success will come from contributing, not from taking.
So who is the candidate that will say these things AND truly pursue them once in office? Is it too late for someone in the running to adjust their message?
Monday, February 15, 2016
Sharia and the OIC: The Curse that Keeps on Taking
A clear and true statement regarding the Organization for Islamic Cooperation by the brave and admirable Deborah Weiss of www.vigilancenow.org.
See her quick video and share:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka4CFacEe1A
Read her book here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf
And, most importantly, do something about it. Get involved with an organization in an effort to confront the monster that is political Islam. It is not just America, the West, or Christians and Jews who must wake up and become informed. It is all who do not want to live exactly as Mohammed did. The Islamic doctrine is "The Curse that Keeps on Taking." Generation after generation. There are hundreds of millions of people who subscribe to a clear and simple interpretation of the Islamic text who want the barbaric Sharia and Islam imposed on the world. Sharia has a thousand camel's noses that it can stick into the tents of pluralism and freedom of speech. It is happening all around you today.
Though this is a battle of ideas, eventually violence will be required to deal with the proponents of Sharia because violence and lies are divinely sanctioned throughout Islam's doctrine. For true Islam, the end of advancing Islam justifies any means. It must be seen for what it is. It must be stopped.
Ban Islam.
See her quick video and share:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka4CFacEe1A
Read her book here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf
And, most importantly, do something about it. Get involved with an organization in an effort to confront the monster that is political Islam. It is not just America, the West, or Christians and Jews who must wake up and become informed. It is all who do not want to live exactly as Mohammed did. The Islamic doctrine is "The Curse that Keeps on Taking." Generation after generation. There are hundreds of millions of people who subscribe to a clear and simple interpretation of the Islamic text who want the barbaric Sharia and Islam imposed on the world. Sharia has a thousand camel's noses that it can stick into the tents of pluralism and freedom of speech. It is happening all around you today.
Though this is a battle of ideas, eventually violence will be required to deal with the proponents of Sharia because violence and lies are divinely sanctioned throughout Islam's doctrine. For true Islam, the end of advancing Islam justifies any means. It must be seen for what it is. It must be stopped.
Ban Islam.
Religious Discrimination at the Supreme Court
Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are now five Roman Catholics (63%) currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (37%) (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). Antonin Scalia was a Roman Catholic.
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Islam: A Matter of Interpretation?
What possible "interpretation" of Muhammad's barbaric and violent religious supremacist bigotry is going to lead his followers to ...as advocates of pluralism say... coexist? For Muslims, to coexist means to compromise one's faith and Muhammad's vision. That may seem unimportant at first, but as a Muslim's faith evolves, delving further into the Islamic doctrine, a cognitive dissonance erupts between the wonderful messiness of our world's pluralism and the purity of Muhammad's vision.
Muhammad's examples and edicts commanding believers to imitate him and engage in eternal jihad against the unbelievers create the elephant in the room. They must not be brushed aside because they are so prevalent throughout the Sunnah and clear in their instruction. The simplest interpretation holds the moral high ground in the long run, thus the durability of the Wahabist approach. When times get tough, we all go back to our hitching posts for guidance. In these moments, followers of Jesus, Confucious, Buddha and others will search their text and find something akin to the Golden Rule. Followers of Muhammad will find not pluralism, but dualism (two classes of people: believers and unbelievers) implemented through a most barbaric means.
At some point after absorbing this truth, many Muslims will snap. All people are fallible, prone to oppress those different from themselves. The last thing the world needs is a prophet, a perfect example of man, telling people to follow those base urges, sanctioning bigoted religious violence against all who reject their holy and exclusive club; promoting a violent pursuit of "I'm righteous, you are not." Such a doctrine is eternal and evil.
All people are also wonderous and beautiful, capable of delivering gracious acts of kindness to a world filled with hurt, vulnerable and broken individuals, each of whom have their own great gifts to offer. Gifts waiting to be opened and offered to the world if only someone were to believe in them or point out that the gift is there, easily seen.
Our religious and civilizational/political doctrines can offer no acceptance for, or succor to, what is worst in mankind. People must be called, consistently, to rise above their petty instincts to destroy people different than themselves. Islam will never do this with any consistency. People must never be given an edict by a prophet to take up arms and slay anyone. Islam will forever do this.
And don't tell me about some of the good things said in the Islamic doctrine. Mein Kampf had some good things said in its pages. Hitler did some good things, as did Muhammad. "Some good things" is easy to accomplish and in no way defines a successful standard for what is divine or godly. Divinity or godliness is determined by what one does when in the breech. For Muhammad, a bad neighbor to all who disagreed with him, the example cannot be fixed through interpretation. A biography cannot be reformed.
The only solution is as obvious as it is nearly impossible: As an example of how to live, Muhammad's must be rejected as if he were Hitler, but worse due to his violent supremacy directed at absolutely everyone who disagrees and his claim that he has God in his pocket. Because the Quran's commands that followers must imitate Muhammad, the world must put Islam aside.
Muhammad's examples and edicts commanding believers to imitate him and engage in eternal jihad against the unbelievers create the elephant in the room. They must not be brushed aside because they are so prevalent throughout the Sunnah and clear in their instruction. The simplest interpretation holds the moral high ground in the long run, thus the durability of the Wahabist approach. When times get tough, we all go back to our hitching posts for guidance. In these moments, followers of Jesus, Confucious, Buddha and others will search their text and find something akin to the Golden Rule. Followers of Muhammad will find not pluralism, but dualism (two classes of people: believers and unbelievers) implemented through a most barbaric means.
At some point after absorbing this truth, many Muslims will snap. All people are fallible, prone to oppress those different from themselves. The last thing the world needs is a prophet, a perfect example of man, telling people to follow those base urges, sanctioning bigoted religious violence against all who reject their holy and exclusive club; promoting a violent pursuit of "I'm righteous, you are not." Such a doctrine is eternal and evil.
All people are also wonderous and beautiful, capable of delivering gracious acts of kindness to a world filled with hurt, vulnerable and broken individuals, each of whom have their own great gifts to offer. Gifts waiting to be opened and offered to the world if only someone were to believe in them or point out that the gift is there, easily seen.
Our religious and civilizational/political doctrines can offer no acceptance for, or succor to, what is worst in mankind. People must be called, consistently, to rise above their petty instincts to destroy people different than themselves. Islam will never do this with any consistency. People must never be given an edict by a prophet to take up arms and slay anyone. Islam will forever do this.
And don't tell me about some of the good things said in the Islamic doctrine. Mein Kampf had some good things said in its pages. Hitler did some good things, as did Muhammad. "Some good things" is easy to accomplish and in no way defines a successful standard for what is divine or godly. Divinity or godliness is determined by what one does when in the breech. For Muhammad, a bad neighbor to all who disagreed with him, the example cannot be fixed through interpretation. A biography cannot be reformed.
The only solution is as obvious as it is nearly impossible: As an example of how to live, Muhammad's must be rejected as if he were Hitler, but worse due to his violent supremacy directed at absolutely everyone who disagrees and his claim that he has God in his pocket. Because the Quran's commands that followers must imitate Muhammad, the world must put Islam aside.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Identify the Problem: Call for Congressional Hearings
When I visited Morrocco in the mid-1990s, my local tour guide explained Islam to me, saying: "There are two things you need to know to understand Islam. First, for all believers the attitude is 'I am righteous, you are not. A good Muslim must destroy the greatest infidels, building alliances with lesser infidels to do so. Once destroyed, all alliances end and we must reassess and start over, since one of those prior alliances may now be with the next greatest infidel.' Second is the scales of justice. 50.1% good deeds gets a Muslim into paradise. If A Muslim kills one person, it is a sin, but if he has saved two people's lives, then he is OK."
America and the rest of the world, even many Muslims, now face an enemy that we remain afraid to identify. Is Islam simply a complicated religion whose adherents need to be protected from anti-religious bigotry? Or is Islam a political manifesto and declaration of war - a deceitful, violently bigoted doctrine for fascist supremacy hiding behind a religious facade and making Mein Kampf look naive and innocent by comparison? Our government owes it to the American people to put this question to bed.
Are we to be so pluralistic that we protect and invite into our country those who openly subscribe to a canon that rejects pluralism and the Golden Rule? Or one that encourages deceit? What if Muslims say they do not encourage these things, but when we read the canon ourselves, it does? It is not just the religious facade that makes it difficult for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims to be openly critical of the violent and bigoted ideas in Islam. It is our humility in not wanting to condemn what some are calling a religion. It is our arrogance in not understanding the seriousness of the threat or doing the work of reading the primary source of their doctrine. It is our fear of the immediate and violent response of Islam to all criticism. It is also that the canon and the prophet encourages lying if it will advance the cause of Islam. This concept is very hard for non-Muslims to grasp, but for an Islamist who follows the clear instructions in the Islamic canon, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist, you are a target for them to convert, subjugate or kill. We are all Kafir and essentially worthless. Statistically, 60% of their canon is not religious at all, but instead is focused on the rules for, and treatment of, unbelievers--more political manifesto than personal religious rules By which to live. Also complicating the analysis is that Islam seems to have two things to say about everything, except the supremacy of Islam, Allah and the prophet.
So, many people think they know who Muslims are. They are people who should be included, accepted and not discriminated against. But they are not an idea. Islam is an idea. But what kind of idea is Islam? Is it just a religion? Is it only Islam's politics that are the world's enemy? Or is the religion also a problem because Mohammed, violent toward all neighbors who disagreed with him, is in the first pillar of Islam, held to be the perfect Muslim and the man that the Koran says, 91 different times, must be imitated? A doctrine defines a God. One's God defines one's sociology and politics. Why do we not hear from the woman's rights movement about the treatment of women? Why do we not hear from churches about the treatment of Christians? Why do we not hear from children's advocates? Will we only count crimes against Muslims as victims in the US and not those by Muslims as perpetrators worldwide? Or in the US on a "per capita" basis?
The United States is having a conversation, but that conversation is being held in the unaccountable realm of social media. The conversation needs to take place immediately in the open and accountable environment of Congressional hearings. What is the enemy we face that is tearing up the entire world in the name of Islam? Doesn't America and the world deserve to know? Like Germans afraid to speak up during Hitler's reign, we and our leaders have been silent and/or going along to get along.
Please, please, call or write your congressman and demand that hearings take place to identify the enemy we face and must defeat.
America and the rest of the world, even many Muslims, now face an enemy that we remain afraid to identify. Is Islam simply a complicated religion whose adherents need to be protected from anti-religious bigotry? Or is Islam a political manifesto and declaration of war - a deceitful, violently bigoted doctrine for fascist supremacy hiding behind a religious facade and making Mein Kampf look naive and innocent by comparison? Our government owes it to the American people to put this question to bed.
Are we to be so pluralistic that we protect and invite into our country those who openly subscribe to a canon that rejects pluralism and the Golden Rule? Or one that encourages deceit? What if Muslims say they do not encourage these things, but when we read the canon ourselves, it does? It is not just the religious facade that makes it difficult for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims to be openly critical of the violent and bigoted ideas in Islam. It is our humility in not wanting to condemn what some are calling a religion. It is our arrogance in not understanding the seriousness of the threat or doing the work of reading the primary source of their doctrine. It is our fear of the immediate and violent response of Islam to all criticism. It is also that the canon and the prophet encourages lying if it will advance the cause of Islam. This concept is very hard for non-Muslims to grasp, but for an Islamist who follows the clear instructions in the Islamic canon, whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist, you are a target for them to convert, subjugate or kill. We are all Kafir and essentially worthless. Statistically, 60% of their canon is not religious at all, but instead is focused on the rules for, and treatment of, unbelievers--more political manifesto than personal religious rules By which to live. Also complicating the analysis is that Islam seems to have two things to say about everything, except the supremacy of Islam, Allah and the prophet.
So, many people think they know who Muslims are. They are people who should be included, accepted and not discriminated against. But they are not an idea. Islam is an idea. But what kind of idea is Islam? Is it just a religion? Is it only Islam's politics that are the world's enemy? Or is the religion also a problem because Mohammed, violent toward all neighbors who disagreed with him, is in the first pillar of Islam, held to be the perfect Muslim and the man that the Koran says, 91 different times, must be imitated? A doctrine defines a God. One's God defines one's sociology and politics. Why do we not hear from the woman's rights movement about the treatment of women? Why do we not hear from churches about the treatment of Christians? Why do we not hear from children's advocates? Will we only count crimes against Muslims as victims in the US and not those by Muslims as perpetrators worldwide? Or in the US on a "per capita" basis?
The United States is having a conversation, but that conversation is being held in the unaccountable realm of social media. The conversation needs to take place immediately in the open and accountable environment of Congressional hearings. What is the enemy we face that is tearing up the entire world in the name of Islam? Doesn't America and the world deserve to know? Like Germans afraid to speak up during Hitler's reign, we and our leaders have been silent and/or going along to get along.
Please, please, call or write your congressman and demand that hearings take place to identify the enemy we face and must defeat.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Allah Hates the King of Kings
From Sahih al-Bukhari, the primary source of Hadiths, found here:
http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Sahih_Al-Bukhari.pdf
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 224:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The most awful name in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the king of kings)."
It leaves no doubt about who Allah is: Satan.
http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Sahih_Al-Bukhari.pdf
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 224:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The most awful name in Allah's sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the king of kings)."
It leaves no doubt about who Allah is: Satan.
Friday, January 1, 2016
The hijab: To wear or not to wear? Is that really the question?
Wearing the hijab is an endorsement of Sharia law which calls for it to be worn along with many other not so good things like stoning women (but not men) for infidelity and beheading for apostacy. It's purpose is to hide a woman's beauty so she will not be at fault in causing a man to rape her.
Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam. They are inseparable. The real difficulty with Islam is that, in being a Muslim, one is commanded to be like Mohammed, who was an extremely bad neighbor to all who did not believe as he insisted they should. In that respect, he was like Hitler on steroids. Continuing the analogy, the Islamists are like the Nazis on steroids, bringing religious conviction to the violent bigotry againt all non-Muslims, not just the Jews. Sadly, "good" Muslims, those who remain part of the group but ignore much of its doctrine, are like the rest of the Germans in WWII, each in some small way complicit with the violence called for by their leader and his book(s).
Reform would be great, but is impossible, as 91 times the Quran commands adherants to immitate Mohammed. He is part of the first pillar, the perfect Muslim. His biography cannot be re-written. The best course of action is for Muslims to recant and choose another tradition and/or prophet more consistent with pluralism and seeking of truth vs. Mohammed's dualism and deceitful inconsistency.
Ban Islam. Ban the hijab.
11:05 PM CST on http://washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
LikeEditShare
Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam. They are inseparable. The real difficulty with Islam is that, in being a Muslim, one is commanded to be like Mohammed, who was an extremely bad neighbor to all who did not believe as he insisted they should. In that respect, he was like Hitler on steroids. Continuing the analogy, the Islamists are like the Nazis on steroids, bringing religious conviction to the violent bigotry againt all non-Muslims, not just the Jews. Sadly, "good" Muslims, those who remain part of the group but ignore much of its doctrine, are like the rest of the Germans in WWII, each in some small way complicit with the violence called for by their leader and his book(s).
Reform would be great, but is impossible, as 91 times the Quran commands adherants to immitate Mohammed. He is part of the first pillar, the perfect Muslim. His biography cannot be re-written. The best course of action is for Muslims to recant and choose another tradition and/or prophet more consistent with pluralism and seeking of truth vs. Mohammed's dualism and deceitful inconsistency.
Ban Islam. Ban the hijab.
11:05 PM CST on http://washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/
LikeEditShare
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)