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.
Very well said when you said, "The last thing the world needs is a god and his prophet telling people to follow those base urges..." This is the heart of the problem with Islam, and you wrote it with simple clarity. Good job.
ReplyDelete