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.
No comments:
Post a Comment