The Truth about Islam

The Truth about Islam

CS Karlson

 

One cannot profess a belief in something one cannot define.  Being unable to define what you give a name to makes your belief irrational.  Likewise, a thing cannot be defined differently from one time to another.  Any definition of a real “thing” cannot change between people or over time.  We cannot in the name of being tolerant or “catholic” ascribe mutually exclusive attributes to a thing, and allow us to proclaim ourselves to be correct.  If we are to believe in a single, universal reality, we cannot accept personally derived definitions of it.  This is not a problem with reality; this is a problem with knowledge and understanding, and often communication.  As Ayn Rand would say, “A is A”. Islam appears to possess this characteristic of ambiguity and internal inconsistency.  Some claim it is peaceful.  Others say it is hateful and violent.  Both characterizations cannot be correct. 

What is of overriding importance then, is not to listen to the laments of such as Tashbih Sayyed, who cannot fathom why the non-Muslim world would cast a suspicious eye on Islam.  It is also not important to simply believe that Islam is unjust, cruel, or abhorrent without a realistic basis.  What is critical is to determine what Islam is.  Once we know what Islam is, because of the magnitude of its presence in this world, we must judge it against a standard of morality.  Either Islam should stand as a truly peaceful and just religion, and all false interpretations can be cast out as heresy, and all true Muslims can join the fight against the heretics who defile the name of Islam with invocations to violence, or Islam must be known by all concerned, intelligent people to be an abomination. Perhaps the truth is a little of both, but we must know, or all arguments and conflicts become arbitrary exercises in nonsense.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe what they are told about a religion.  They derive their “knowledge”\nfrom hearsay.  Because religions are complex and take time to understand,\nlearning from others is how most people gain knowledge about a faith.  But\nthis method is subject to tremendous errors in understanding.  How do you\nknow for sure that what you are being told is reasonable or true?  We need\nmore.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\nbelieve a religion is what the majority, or plurality, or consensus of its\npractitioners believe it to be.  This is the participatory democracy\ntheory of religious expression.  But this must necessarily not be correct,\nfor that model of reality renders the creed subject to personalization and\nvariation over time, and that is irrational.  As pointed out above, the\ndoctrine cannot change without a specific, clear process for change (in\northodoxy).  Either people can find an error in their interpretation of\nit, or they can shift away from it and establish an alternative religion, sect,\nor denomination.  But we cannot look to an average of all opinions about a\nreligion and be certain that a commonly peaceful religion wouldn’t turn\naround and become viciously sadistic.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe that all religions are man-made institution, and as such are\ncapable of transitioning through a historical process of continuous\nenlightenment.  This is the evolution theory of religious\ndefinition.  It assumes that in their dark, formative years, all religions\nare based on the norms for those relatively uncivilized folks, and as secular\ncivilization advances, the religion is upgraded to keep up.  Thus any\nreligion can, given enough time, evolve into something mature and tolerant. \nThis notion cannot be accepted, as it only allows a definition of a religious\ndoctrine to exist at a point in time, which upon sunset or daybreak could be interpreted\ndifferently to keep up with the events of the day.  We need more.”,1] ); //–>  

Some people believe what they are told about a religion. They derive their “knowledge” from hearsay.  Because religions are complex and take time to understand, learning from others is how most people gain knowledge about a faith.  But this method is subject to tremendous errors in understanding. How do you know for sure that what you are being told is reasonable or true? We need more. 

Some believe a religion is what the majority, or plurality, or consensus of its practitioners believe it to be. This is the participatory democracy theory of religious expression. But this must necessarily not be correct, for that model of reality renders the creed subject to personalization and variation over time, and that is irrational. As pointed out above, the doctrine cannot change without a specific, clear process for change (in orthodoxy). Either people can find an error in their interpretation of it, or they can shift away from it and establish an alternative religion, sect, or denomination. But we cannot look to an average of all opinions about a religion and be certain that a commonly peaceful religion wouldn’t turn around and become viciously sadistic. We need more. 

Some people believe that all religions are man-made institution, and as such are capable of transitioning through a historical process of continuous enlightenment.  This is the evolution theory of religious definition.  It assumes that in their dark, formative years, all religions are based on the norms for those relatively uncivilized folks, and as secular civilization advances, the religion is upgraded to keep up.  Thus any religion can, given enough time, evolve into something mature and tolerant.  This notion cannot be accepted, as it only allows a definition of a religious doctrine to exist at a point in time, which upon sunset or daybreak could be interpreted differently to keep up with the events of the day.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe that a religion is what its practitioners do.  This is the “walk\nthe walk” theory of the definition of a religion.  But we cannot\nlook to a believer’s behavior to define the belief system that the agent (of\nthe behavior) purports to represent.  What if the agent is wrong? \nThen their behavior is not representative of the creed.  Moreover, most\nreligions represent ideals, and as most people realize, we (people) are not\nthat good at living up to ideals.  Religions are intended to be instructional,\ninspirational, and directional.  That we cannot self-configure and self\nmaintain the ideal state is the reason why we have religion to begin with.  Looking\nat the behavior of people can never give you the true picture of their\nreligion.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nThis\nis not to say that the behavior patterns of a large sample of professed\nbelievers in a religion (necessarily) do not represent the ethical basis for a religion. \nLikewise, the assertions of those who repute to adopt a religion may (but do\nnot necessarily) represent some measure of truth about the religion\nitself.  While the behavior of the believer does not guarantee knowledge\nof the religion, observed behavior could certainly give rise to a hypothesis\nabout the definition of the religion.  This is essentially a scientific\nproblem, which can be tested.  But science does not measure fantasies or\nsubjective notions.  It can only verify reality, otherwise science itself\nis a pointless exercise.  A scientific method to determine the reality of\na religion’s principles can use behavior patterns to design an\nexperiment.  But that experiment must measure something firm, something\ndiscoverable.  Thus, the religion itself can only be defined by a single body\nof knowledge that all believers profess to accept.”,1] ); //–>  

Some people believe that a religion is what its practitioners do.  This is the “walk the walk” theory of the definition of a religion.  But we cannot look to a believer’s behavior to define the belief system that the agent (of the behavior) purports to represent.  What if the agent is wrong?  Then their behavior is not representative of the creed.  Moreover, most religions represent ideals, and as most people realize, we (people) are not that good at living up to ideals.  Religions are intended to be instructional, inspirational, and directional.  That we cannot self-configure and self maintain the ideal state is the reason why we have religion to begin with.  Looking at the behavior of people can never give you the true picture of their religion.  We need more. 

This is not to say that the behavior patterns of a large sample of professed believers in a religion (necessarily) do not represent the ethical basis for a religion.  Likewise, the assertions of those who repute to adopt a religion may (but do not necessarily) represent some measure of truth about the religion itself.  While the behavior of the believer does not guarantee knowledge of the religion, observed behavior could certainly give rise to a hypothesis about the definition of the religion.  This is essentially a scientific problem, which can be tested.  But science does not measure fantasies or subjective notions.  It can only verify reality, otherwise science itself is a pointless exercise.  A scientific method to determine the reality of a religion’s principles can use behavior patterns to design an experiment.  But that experiment must measure something firm, something discoverable.  Thus, the religion itself can only be defined by a single body of knowledge that all believers profess to accept. 

The body of knowledge must be a preserved state of thinking from the originator(s) of the religion.  It must be an intellectual property, which becomes the most reliable way to comprehend the nature of a religion.  But what is the body of knowledge?  And where is it?  Knowledge must come through some kind of reliable, stable interface between your mind and an intellectual property that represents the truth of the religion.  This interface is a medium where the “word” or the religion is documented and preserved.  Fortunately, we have a reliable source of knowledge about Islam, which transcends common ideas, common behaviors, and common chit chat.  It is a codex, a scripture.  It is the Koran and the Hadith.  While some apocrypha has crept into the body of Islamic scripture, there is a plain and accepted orthodoxy, that is fairly easy to determine in this, the world’s newest major religion. 

So the question for rational thinkers is this:  Is Islam a religion of peace, toleration, and forgiveness?  Or is it a religion of violence, revenge, and coercion?  Or is it a mix of both?  Or is the religion truly ambiguous, so metaphorical that its meaning simply cannot be derived, rendering the whole doctrine an absurd fantasy?  Is Islam immutable, or is it subject to change over time by a consensus of recursively enlightened representatives?  In today’s repressive culture of bashing Christianity and embracing “alternative” religions, are we even allowed to ask such impolite things, or will a million Muslims riot in the streets because we dare to seek the truth? 

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n1:  Islam is a belief system established as a way to reject and detest Judaism\nand Christianity as being heresies against “true” Abrahamic faith\nin God, and as abominations to the Muslim god, Allah.

\n\nTherefore,\nJews and Christians are necessarily subject to distaste, distrust, and ill\njudgment.

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n2: Islam calls for a lack of respect for, lack of forgiveness of, and\ninstitutionalized intolerance towards Jews and Christians.

\n\nTherefore,\nJews and Christians cannot be considered co-equals or “sinners”,\nbut as defilements, and obstacles to God’s will.

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n3:  Islam empowers and urges believers to wage violent, physical struggle\nagainst Jews and Christians as well as “pagans”, until the world is\nunder the political, military, and social authority of Islam.  Muhammad\nled or participated in wars of overt aggression, and these wars were approved\nand urged by the Muslim god, Allah to save the world by establishing Islamic\nrule.  Warriors for Allah are assured the highest benefits in heaven.\n(there is a notion of a “greater” Jihad, one of inner acceptance of\nIslam, but this notion is only applicable where Islam has already become\nsupreme….meaning, after the world is brought under the control of Islam,\nthe Muslims are free to continue a personal “struggle” against\ntheir natural urge to be free.”,1] ); //–>Let’s find out.  And when we do, we won’t have to worry about endless debates over whether or not the non-Muslim world has anything to fear from Islam’s encroachment.  Each of the assertions below is testable and verifiable, and we should welcome the task of validating the truth about Islam.  In fact, once validated, Islam can be compared with other religions in terms of its ethical essence, using similar processes to ascertain the truth about them. 

Fact 1:  Islam is a belief system established as a way to reject and detest Judaism and Christianity as being heresies against “true” Abrahamic faith in God, and as abominations to the Muslim god, Allah.

Therefore, Jews and Christians are necessarily subject to distaste, distrust, and ill judgment. 

Fact 2: Islam calls for a lack of respect for, lack of forgiveness of, and institutionalized intolerance towards Jews and Christians.

Therefore, Jews and Christians cannot be considered co-equals or “sinners”, but as defilements, and obstacles to God’s will. 

Fact 3:  Islam empowers and urges believers to wage violent, physical struggle against Jews and Christians as well as “pagans”, until the world is under the political, military, and social authority of Islam.  Muhammad led or participated in wars of overt aggression, and these wars were approved and urged by the Muslim god, Allah to save the world by establishing Islamic rule.  Warriors for Allah are assured the highest benefits in heaven. (there is a notion of a “greater” Jihad, one of inner acceptance of Islam, but this notion is only applicable where Islam has already become supreme….meaning, after the world is brought under the control of Islam, the Muslims are free to continue a personal “struggle” against their natural urge to be free.

\n\nTherefore,\nthere can be no lasting peace between non-Islamic and Islamic societies.  Further,\neven after Muslims are defeated in war, as long as they retain their religious\nbeliefs, they are actively encouraged to reinitiate war.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 4: \nIslam allows those captured in wars of aggression (for the glory of Allah) to\nbe killed and their possessions taken, and their women raped.  Islam\nallows and encourages the wealth of non-Muslims to be usurped and shared with\nthe Muslim church.  Islam allows those resisting its supremacy to be taken\nas slaves in the new Islamic order that follows defeat of the infidels. \nIslam allows and encourages, but does not force those under Islamic rule to\nconvert to Islam.

\n\nTherefore,\nlosing a war with military forces under the banner of Islam is painful and\ncostly.  Further, Islam sanctions rape, murder, looting, slavery, discrimination\nagainst non-Muslims, and forced conversions.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 5: \nIslam commands and prescribes many behaviors because either Muhammad commanded\nthem (Koran), or Muhammad behaved according to them (Hadith).  Muhammad’s\ncommandments and behavioral examples are to be personally emulated or politically\nimposed upon Islamic society.  There is little room in these commandments\nfor interpretation or inconsistency.  Many of these behavioral rules are\ncodified in sharia law.

\n\nTherefore,\nIslam is intended to impose a strict theocracy via sharia upon all subjects\nwithin its authority.  This authority (once Islam is supreme) permits\nofficial Islam to recognize alternate religions, but does not force them to do\nso.  And, all non-converts must be taxed and may be enslaved by Muslims.”,1] ); //–>

Therefore, there can be no lasting peace between non-Islamic and Islamic societies.  Further, even after Muslims are defeated in war, as long as they retain their religious beliefs, they are actively encouraged to reinitiate war. 

Fact 4:  Islam allows those captured in wars of aggression (for the glory of Allah) to be killed and their possessions taken, and their women raped.  Islam allows and encourages the wealth of non-Muslims to be usurped and shared with the Muslim church.  Islam allows those resisting its supremacy to be taken as slaves in the new Islamic order that follows defeat of the infidels.  Islam allows and encourages, but does not force those under Islamic rule to convert to Islam.

Therefore, losing a war with military forces under the banner of Islam is painful and costly.  Further, Islam sanctions rape, murder, looting, slavery, discrimination against non-Muslims, and forced conversions. 

Fact 5:  Islam commands and prescribes many behaviors because either Muhammad commanded them (Koran), or Muhammad behaved according to them (Hadith).  Muhammad’s commandments and behavioral examples are to be personally emulated or politically imposed upon Islamic society.  There is little room in these commandments for interpretation or inconsistency.  Many of these behavioral rules are codified in sharia law.

Therefore, Islam is intended to impose a strict theocracy via sharia upon all subjects within its authority.  This authority (once Islam is supreme) permits official Islam to recognize alternate religions, but does not force them to do so.  And, all non-converts must be taxed and may be enslaved by Muslims.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 6: \nIslam can never be changed by reinterpretation, redefinition, or even formal\nabrogation.  It can never be modified, ignored or abstracted.  No\nsubsequent or future prophets can succeed Muhammad’s authority.  If\nyou attempt to change the tenets of Islam as defined in the Koran, and as\nexemplified by Muhammad, you are an apostate, itself a crime punishable by\ndeath.  Further, whenever the Koran is in conflict with itself (some\npassages contradict other passages), the latter passages always supercede the\nformer (because the former passages are ipso facto Satanic verses).

\n\nTherefore,\nthose who claim Islam can be defined by contemporary consensus or circumstances\nare wrong.  Islam can never be considered to have changed in any context\nwhatsoever.  Further, where there are few, isolated examples of toleration\nand peacefulness in the Koran, these passages are rendered inoperative by any\ninvocations to violence and intolerance that appear later.  Muhammad’s\nactions and words right up until his death were clear indications of his intent\nto wage war on the non-converted world and to treat infidels in a\ndiscriminatory manner.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 7: \nThe figure and historic person of Muhammad (the prophet) may never be mocked,\nridiculed or tormented.  Those who engage in this conduct are subject to\nwrits of assassination.

\n\nTherefore\nMuslims are empowered to murder those they accuse of mocking the prophet.

\n\n 

\n\n“,1] ); //–>  

Fact 6:  Islam can never be changed by reinterpretation, redefinition, or even formal abrogation.  It can never be modified, ignored or abstracted.  No subsequent or future prophets can succeed Muhammad’s authority.  If you attempt to change the tenets of Islam as defined in the Koran, and as exemplified by Muhammad, you are an apostate, itself a crime punishable by death.  Further, whenever the Koran is in conflict with itself (some passages contradict other passages), the latter passages always supercede the former (because the former passages are ipso facto Satanic verses).

Therefore, those who claim Islam can be defined by contemporary consensus or circumstances are wrong.  Islam can never be considered to have changed in any context whatsoever.  Further, where there are few, isolated examples of toleration and peacefulness in the Koran, these passages are rendered inoperative by any invocations to violence and intolerance that appear later.  Muhammad’s actions and words right up until his death were clear indications of his intent to wage war on the non-converted world and to treat infidels in a discriminatory manner. 

Fact 7:  The figure and historic person of Muhammad (the prophet) may never be mocked, ridiculed or tormented.  Those who engage in this conduct are subject to writs of assassination.

Therefore Muslims are empowered to murder those they accuse of mocking the prophet. 

\n\nTherefore,\nIslam is an institution of perpetual discrimination against women.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 9: \nMuslims are encouraged to deceive and lie about their motives and tactics in\ntheir ongoing war with infidels.

\n\nTherefore,\nyou cannot trust or believe a Muslim’s words or deeds.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 10: \nMuslims are encouraged to not just wage war, but to terrorize the enemy into abandoning\nthe will to resist the onslaught.

\n\nTherefore,\nterrorism is a tool and manifestation of orthodox Islam.

\n\n 

\n\nBy\nthese truths, plainly evident in numerous, unabrogated sections of Islamic\nscripture, Islam can be known.  Those who uphold these tenets cannot be\nseen as extremists or deviants with regard to the doctrine of Islam. \nThose who practice these prescriptions are adhering to the fundamental, essence\nof the Islamic creed.

\n\n 

\n\n“,1] ); //–>Fact 8:  Women in Islam have dramatically lower rights than men.  Men can marry several women, but women cannot marry several men.  Punishments for crimes conducted by women are more severe than punishments for men who commit similar crimes.  Rights of women in divorce or inheritance are lower than the rights of men.  Women must be veiled, but not men.  Women may be genitally mutilated, but not men.

Therefore, Islam is an institution of perpetual discrimination against women. 

Fact 9:  Muslims are encouraged to deceive and lie about their motives and tactics in their ongoing war with infidels.

Therefore, you cannot trust or believe a Muslim’s words or deeds. 

Fact 10:  Muslims are encouraged to not just wage war, but to terrorize the enemy into abandoning the will to resist the onslaught.

Therefore, terrorism is a tool and manifestation of orthodox Islam. 

By these truths, plainly evident in numerous, unabrogated sections of Islamic scripture, Islam can be known.  Those who uphold these tenets cannot be seen as extremists or deviants with regard to the doctrine of Islam.  Those who practice these prescriptions are adhering to the fundamental, essence of the Islamic creed. 

If\nthis is not true, let a Muslim reveal scripture that contradicts these\nassertions, which conforms to the Islamic rules of abrogation.  Once the\ntruth about Islam is revealed, we may then judge the behavior of terrorists and\nImams who preach their hate as being orthodox and conventional.  We can no\nlonger refer to them as “radical;” or “extreme”.  Moreover,\nwe can judge so-called moderate Muslims to be heretical and ignorant (or\nperhaps deceitful).  The moderates can be dismissed from the entire\ndebate.

\n\n 

\n\nOnce\nwe have established a truthful platform, we can begin to ask if Islam is in\nfact, per se, evil.  To do this we must go through that difficult process\nof defining evil.  If we cannot do this, we cannot arrive at any basis for\nstudying or arguing ethics.  We’d have to content ourselves with an\narbitrary, capricious, fickle world of anything-goes.  Fortunately, most\npeople believe in some kind of absolute standard of ethics.  We must then,\nmeasure Islam against that standard.  We can certainly measure other Godly\nand Godless belief systems against the same standard and see how they come\nout.  There are a lot of atheists, agnostics, and secularists, as well as\na good many insecure Christians who would be very afraid to examine their own\nscriptural foundation for ethics, so they reflexively and unconsciously declare\nany judgment of Islam to be impolite.  But they are wrong.

\n\n 

\n\nSociety\nmust not refuse to protect itself and accept any wolf that arrives in sheep’s\nclothing.

\n\n 

\n\nWe\nmust know the truth about Islam.”,1] ); //–>If this is not true, let a Muslim reveal scripture that contradicts these assertions, which conforms to the Islamic rules of abrogation.  Once the truth about Islam is revealed, we may then judge the behavior of terrorists and Imams who preach their hate as being orthodox and conventional.  We can no longer refer to them as “radical;” or “extreme”.  Moreover, we can judge so-called moderate Muslims to be heretical and ignorant (or perhaps deceitful).  The moderates can be dismissed from the entire debate. 

Once we have established a truthful platform, we can begin to ask if Islam is in fact, per se, evil.  To do this we must go through that difficult process of defining evil.  If we cannot do this, we cannot arrive at any basis for studying or arguing ethics.  We’d have to content ourselves with an arbitrary, capricious, fickle world of anything-goes.  Fortunately, most people believe in some kind of absolute standard of ethics.  We must then, measure Islam against that standard.  We can certainly measure other Godly and Godless belief systems against the same standard and see how they come out.  There are a lot of atheists, agnostics, and secularists, as well as a good many insecure Christians who would be very afraid to examine their own scriptural foundation for ethics, so they reflexively and unconsciously declare any judgment of Islam to be impolite.  But they are wrong. 

Society must not refuse to protect itself and accept any wolf that arrives in sheep’s clothing.

We must know the truth about Islam.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: