[Colin Glassey 1 PM] Intollerant Islam
I'm going to jump on the bandwagon of people attacking Islam again. The Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, was, by my reading of history, not an ideal person. [Simply saying this exposes me to fatwas of death from various Islamic fanatics, so be it, it gets worse.] In fact, I would argue that Mohammed is the root cause of Islam's problems today (said problems being largely based on the principle: we are right, you are wrong, we will kill you if you don't adopt our way of thinking).
Unlike the other major religious leaders (Moses, the Buddha, and Jesus, in historical order), Mohammed’s life is pretty well known. Considering that some historians argue that none of the other three are real people, Mohammed’s life is nearly an open and shut book. Sure, there are lots of issues, unknowns in his life, but the basic outlines of his story are accepted as fact. He did live, he did found a religion, he died. The book he wrote is almost perfectly preserved from his hand, unlike the Torah, whose many authors are unknown, unlike the New Testament which was created by a voting by Bishops some 300 years after Jesus’ death.
The problem is this: Mohammed’s life by the standards of his day (600 C.E. in Arabia) was nearly a paragon of virtue and humanity. I can well imagine how his message spread in that day, considering the barbarism he was trying to reform. However, by the standards of today, Mohammed’s personal history contains episodes of violence, betrayal, and the corruption of power. To my mind he was a man who had great ideas for his culture, but had some weaknesses as well. He was not perfect. I am sure that Moses, Jesus, and the Buddha had weaknesses, character flaws as well. However, none of these flaws survived the myth-making process that followed their deaths. They come down to us as perfect humans, thanks to the editing of the historical records by they devoted followers. Unhappily for the world today, Mohammed was not so lucky.
Moslems hold contradictory beliefs about Mohammed, on the one hand they say he was human, on the other hand they say he was perfect. His every word and deed a perfect model worthy of emulation by all humans, now and forever. But was Mohammed perfect? Again, I think not, judging by my standards in the year 2002.
The modern indictment of Mohammed is as follows:
- That he led raids against trade caravans and stole the property of others.
- That he condoned slavery.
- That he led military forces and was directly involved in the deaths of people who committed no crime other than they wished to not be ruled by Mohammed.
- That he ordered collective punishments against people who had the bad luck to be associated with people, who worked against him. These collective punishments varied from enslavement to death.
These are all facts, based on the life of Mohammed as written by his followers.
By modern standards these are pretty serious crimes. Any Moslem can engage in these same actions and justify them by pointing to these incidents from the Prophet’s life. There are justifications for all these actions, gone over in great detail by the faithful. These justifications all revolve around how it was allowed for Mohammed to do these things, but not for other people, unless, you were in the same circumstances. The bottom line for me is that Mohammed did these things to other people. And since he is the Prophet, the perfect example for all people, followers of him can argue that they are justified in behaving in the same way.
Here is quote from Joseph Britt, found on Slate.com:
“As a practical matter, the voices of non-Muslims saying that the essence of Islam is peace seem to carry little weight in the Muslim world. What counts there is what Muslims say, and what they do. If even a small minority of Muslims insist that the most depraved forms of violence are sanctioned or mandated by Islam and are not forcibly contradicted by other Muslims, non-Muslims will eventually come to identify the whole religion with terrorism.
…what are non-Muslims--not only Westerners but Indians, Chinese and Africans--supposed to think? Why would they not come to regard Islam as a menace, and Muslim minorities in their own countries as a liability? Non-Muslims will make their own judgments about whether "Islam means peace," and they won't make them by studying the Koran. This is why terrorism committed in the name of Islam is ultimately a much greater threat to Muslims than it is to us.”
Show me another major religious figure who, after having declared that he was the leader of a new way of life, proceeded to steal from innocent victims, and kill
or enslave those who opposed him. All the killing, stealing, enslavement
and murder was justified by Muhammed's goal of gaining control over Mecca.
In other words, the ends justify the means. This is the fundamental example
of morality that Muhammed's life teaches to his followers: Anything is
justifiable in the name of a higher goal.
Is there anything like this in the life of Jesus? In the life of Buddha?
In the life of Confucius? Western morality teaches that there are absolutes,
that the ends do not justify the means, that "God's Law" stands above
mere circumstance. Buddha taught that killing was both evil and pointless
and only hurt your own soul. Muhammed justified his actions by a series
of "revelations" which conveniently affirmed every action he took. This,
in a nutshell, is what is wrong with Theocracy. When you are the word
of God, nothing is off limits to you.
I think it is quite clear how this concept of morality can be easily
used to suit the ideology of scum like Osama bin Laden. The next time
a Moslem talks about how his religion is one of peace and that there
is nothing in the religion that justifies the killing of innocents, that
person is ignoring a key part of the life history of the "perfect man
of Islam".
Comparing religions we find that at the core of Christianity, a man who
would rather die than fight his enemies. At the core of Buddhism we find
a man who opposed killing any living creature and who gave up a life
of power and luxury to become a penniless wandering teacher. At the core
of Islam we find a man who would rather kill than be killed, a man who
did wield political power, a man who justified every action he took on
the basis of divine revelation. In short, Mohammed was a Theocratic Dictator.
Salman Rushdie wrote the following in the Washington Post (10/2/2001)
"There needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of
why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains."
In my opinion, they don't have to look very hard to find the source.
Unfortunately for them and for us, it lies at the very center of the
life of the founder of Islam.
1:20:03 PM 
|
|
