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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)