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.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
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)