I post this here a few years ago.. Nothing has changed
This is what I think about Muhammed/Islam and you can decide whether I'm "vilifying" them.
But, remember, to "vilify" someone, what you say has to be untrue. It's not vilification if it's the truth.
I am just a guy on a message board reporting on what I have found. I know a few people here would like to think I'm advocating hatred, but I'm not. They just don't like what I have to say, that's all. Well, life is rough all around, I guess. Personally, I think Christ got it right, and he transcended hatred. I, on the other hand, am just an imperfect, unenlightened sinner, but I do deeply believe that the truth will set you free, so that's my quest. Pretty simple, really.
So, as for what I have to say about Muhammed, don't anyone take my word for it. Please, do your own DD, and then tell me what part of this is untrue....
First, Muhammed was a war-monger.
Second, for a prophet, he didn t have much of a clue, to wit: When Jabril appeared to him, he thought it was the jinn, which were the Arab pagan gods (or demi-gods - whatever). What kind of prophet doesn't even recognize when God is talking to him? Moreover, he didn't even understand who Abraham, Moses and Jesus were until the Jews explained it to him. Yet he claims Islam is intended to set the record straight, because the Jews and Christians got it all wrong. How can that be if he didn't have any clue about the people he was talking about and had to rely on the Jews to help him interpret what God was telling him?
Third, in "reciting" the Koran, he promulgated, if you will, thousands of very repetitive verses that fall into two basic categories: warnings as to what will happen to the unbelievers; and instructions on what to say to the Christians and Jews. But, he didn't separate them, as two distinct themes. Rather, he intertwined these verses, so that they alternate. That maximizes the chance of blurring the distinctions, and maximizes the chance of confusing the Christians and the Jews with the unbelievers. And, clearly, that is exactly what has happened. But, if these two sets of ideas were intended to be distinct and different, then why not either say so or separate them? That's no accident, because this technique is repeated over and over and over throughout the Koran. By so-doing, it creates a tone - an impression - that is anti-Judeo-Christian without explicitly saying so. As a form of political brainwashing, it's truly ingenious.
Fourth, the Koran deconstructs both Judaism and Christianity. It does not deconstruct the "self" (i.e., the "believer"). This is why there has never been any real, serious exegesis of the Koran in 1,300 years. (In contrast, Christianity entered modernity when the Reformation brought about a new, critical deconstruction.) But, the Koran simply does not lend itself to it, because it eschews introspection. The greater emphasis is placed on condemning others. And this is yet another reason why there is virtually no criticism or questioning of the Koran: the downside risk of being labeled an "unbeliever" is too severe. And infidels, of course, are dealt with harshly. Consequently, the substance and tone of the Koran tend to operate to encourage people to point fingers at everyone else, lest someone point fingers at them first. IMO, what you see in the Islamic world today is the natural by-product of this kind of thinking, and it all came out of the mouth of Muhammed.
Fifth, the Koran is only part of a wider body of literature, known as hadith, that is based on what Muhammed said and did. When you look at the hadith, you see all the violence - you see all the references to jihad fi sabil Illah (jihad in the path of God) that are clearly military efforts, and not merely the more innocuous version of jihad, i.e.,"striving" (though, even striving, it turns out, is not completely innocuous, but I'll omit that discussion here). So, here you have Muhammed characterizing his battles against others as jihad in the path of God. What more need I say? In the aftermath of 9/11, you see the Islamic world trying to play down the non-Koranic hadith (in statements for western consumption, that is) because it's not pretty. But, go check out the hadith for yourself, and then ask whether I am vilifying Muhammed. He did it all to himself. I'm just the messenger.
Sixth, the Koran and hadith, as I'm sure everyone realizes by now, is also a political blueprint. It comes with its own set of laws, known as Sharia, which includes some barbaric punishments. It also devotes a good amount of attention to the who, what, when, where and why of waging war. The world is divided into two camps: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). All lands that are ruled according to Muslim law are Dar al-Islam and all lands ruled by anyone else (e.g., the U.S.) are Dar al-Harb. This is Muhammed's grand and enlightened world view. You might want to contrast that with the teachings of Christ or Buddha. But, because the Koran is also a political/legal document, you can go pick up a Muslim newspaper here in the U.S. and read for yourselves the ongoing discussions about whether Muslims should accept the U.S. Constitution only conditionally, and only to the extent that it conforms to the Koran. Read these discussions for yourselves; I have.
Seventh, the Koran, ontologically, incorporates a notion of "justice for this physical plane of reality. But, I would suggest to you that it is justice without mercy. Read the Koran and hadith for yourselves, and decide for yourselves how much mercy is contained in it. I think it is merciless. But, if you think about it, we wouldn't need justice at all if we all had mercy. Now, granted, both are ideals that we strive for in an imperfect world, and we don't achieve either with anything close to perfection. However, that does not change the fact that one of those ideals is "higher" than the other. If we had mercy, we would not need justice. But, note how the converse is not true: if we have justice, we still need mercy. ( And earthly power doth then show likest God s, when Mercy seasons Justice. - The Merchant of Venice)
The fact that mercy is not achieved with perfection is not a justification for abandoning mercy in favor of justice, because justice can not be achieved with perfection either. So, in abandoning mercy in favor of justice, all we have really done is abandoned a higher ideal for a lesser one. The world will still be imperfect, only now it is pursuing a lesser ideal. That is clearly an inferior ontology. Anyway, Christ preached mercy, but Muhammed derogates mercy in favor of justice - when he's not busy fighting wars, that is.
I'll finish with a few thoughts and some of my own conclusions:
To put it another way, based on my reading of the Koran, hadith, and the life of Muhammed, I don't think the militant extremists are the ones who have corrupted the Koran. I think they have it exactly right. I think it's the Muslims, like my friend those who actually believe in getting along with others - who have "corrupted" the Koran. I applaud them for doing it, obviously. It warms my heart to see the Kurds in northern Iraq creating such a civilized community for themselves amidst all the surrounding violence and turmoil, and despite all that has been done to them. I applaud all of that. But, Muhammed wouldn't applaud it, so let's just be clear about that. And that is what makes Islam dangerous: the closer you get to its core - the closer you get to the hadith and to Muhammed - the more dangerous it gets. Yet, this enduring seed is impenetrable. It's like trying to get rid of a wart; you can try to get rid of the dead skin and the "growth," but until you drill down and get that virus that's at the root, it keeps coming back.
There's an expression: the problem with communism is communism, but the problem with capitalism is capitalists. Whether you agree with that or not, the point it is trying to make is that, with communism, it is the idea itself that is flawed; with capitalism, on the other hand, it's not the idea that is flawed, but the way it is practiced. (Again, I'm not interested in anyone arguing about whether that's true; the point is to see the kind of distinction being drawn.) Well, I would say the same thing about Islam and Christianity: the problem with Islam is Islam, and the problem with Christianity is Christians. In other words, Christianity would be a really great thing if people actually emulated Christ, but they don t always. But, for all the peace-loving Muslims out there (and I don't deny they are out there) who believe in religious tolerance, and love and compassion even for non-Muslims - for all of them, Muhammed is not someone to be emulated, but, rather, someone who must be overcome. I do agree that there is an important epistemological distinction that must be made..but to bring the two together, Christians need to uncover Christ, while Muslims need to bury Muhammed.
This is what I think about Muhammed/Islam and you can decide whether I'm "vilifying" them.
But, remember, to "vilify" someone, what you say has to be untrue. It's not vilification if it's the truth.
I am just a guy on a message board reporting on what I have found. I know a few people here would like to think I'm advocating hatred, but I'm not. They just don't like what I have to say, that's all. Well, life is rough all around, I guess. Personally, I think Christ got it right, and he transcended hatred. I, on the other hand, am just an imperfect, unenlightened sinner, but I do deeply believe that the truth will set you free, so that's my quest. Pretty simple, really.
So, as for what I have to say about Muhammed, don't anyone take my word for it. Please, do your own DD, and then tell me what part of this is untrue....
First, Muhammed was a war-monger.
Second, for a prophet, he didn t have much of a clue, to wit: When Jabril appeared to him, he thought it was the jinn, which were the Arab pagan gods (or demi-gods - whatever). What kind of prophet doesn't even recognize when God is talking to him? Moreover, he didn't even understand who Abraham, Moses and Jesus were until the Jews explained it to him. Yet he claims Islam is intended to set the record straight, because the Jews and Christians got it all wrong. How can that be if he didn't have any clue about the people he was talking about and had to rely on the Jews to help him interpret what God was telling him?
Third, in "reciting" the Koran, he promulgated, if you will, thousands of very repetitive verses that fall into two basic categories: warnings as to what will happen to the unbelievers; and instructions on what to say to the Christians and Jews. But, he didn't separate them, as two distinct themes. Rather, he intertwined these verses, so that they alternate. That maximizes the chance of blurring the distinctions, and maximizes the chance of confusing the Christians and the Jews with the unbelievers. And, clearly, that is exactly what has happened. But, if these two sets of ideas were intended to be distinct and different, then why not either say so or separate them? That's no accident, because this technique is repeated over and over and over throughout the Koran. By so-doing, it creates a tone - an impression - that is anti-Judeo-Christian without explicitly saying so. As a form of political brainwashing, it's truly ingenious.
Fourth, the Koran deconstructs both Judaism and Christianity. It does not deconstruct the "self" (i.e., the "believer"). This is why there has never been any real, serious exegesis of the Koran in 1,300 years. (In contrast, Christianity entered modernity when the Reformation brought about a new, critical deconstruction.) But, the Koran simply does not lend itself to it, because it eschews introspection. The greater emphasis is placed on condemning others. And this is yet another reason why there is virtually no criticism or questioning of the Koran: the downside risk of being labeled an "unbeliever" is too severe. And infidels, of course, are dealt with harshly. Consequently, the substance and tone of the Koran tend to operate to encourage people to point fingers at everyone else, lest someone point fingers at them first. IMO, what you see in the Islamic world today is the natural by-product of this kind of thinking, and it all came out of the mouth of Muhammed.
Fifth, the Koran is only part of a wider body of literature, known as hadith, that is based on what Muhammed said and did. When you look at the hadith, you see all the violence - you see all the references to jihad fi sabil Illah (jihad in the path of God) that are clearly military efforts, and not merely the more innocuous version of jihad, i.e.,"striving" (though, even striving, it turns out, is not completely innocuous, but I'll omit that discussion here). So, here you have Muhammed characterizing his battles against others as jihad in the path of God. What more need I say? In the aftermath of 9/11, you see the Islamic world trying to play down the non-Koranic hadith (in statements for western consumption, that is) because it's not pretty. But, go check out the hadith for yourself, and then ask whether I am vilifying Muhammed. He did it all to himself. I'm just the messenger.
Sixth, the Koran and hadith, as I'm sure everyone realizes by now, is also a political blueprint. It comes with its own set of laws, known as Sharia, which includes some barbaric punishments. It also devotes a good amount of attention to the who, what, when, where and why of waging war. The world is divided into two camps: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). All lands that are ruled according to Muslim law are Dar al-Islam and all lands ruled by anyone else (e.g., the U.S.) are Dar al-Harb. This is Muhammed's grand and enlightened world view. You might want to contrast that with the teachings of Christ or Buddha. But, because the Koran is also a political/legal document, you can go pick up a Muslim newspaper here in the U.S. and read for yourselves the ongoing discussions about whether Muslims should accept the U.S. Constitution only conditionally, and only to the extent that it conforms to the Koran. Read these discussions for yourselves; I have.
Seventh, the Koran, ontologically, incorporates a notion of "justice for this physical plane of reality. But, I would suggest to you that it is justice without mercy. Read the Koran and hadith for yourselves, and decide for yourselves how much mercy is contained in it. I think it is merciless. But, if you think about it, we wouldn't need justice at all if we all had mercy. Now, granted, both are ideals that we strive for in an imperfect world, and we don't achieve either with anything close to perfection. However, that does not change the fact that one of those ideals is "higher" than the other. If we had mercy, we would not need justice. But, note how the converse is not true: if we have justice, we still need mercy. ( And earthly power doth then show likest God s, when Mercy seasons Justice. - The Merchant of Venice)
The fact that mercy is not achieved with perfection is not a justification for abandoning mercy in favor of justice, because justice can not be achieved with perfection either. So, in abandoning mercy in favor of justice, all we have really done is abandoned a higher ideal for a lesser one. The world will still be imperfect, only now it is pursuing a lesser ideal. That is clearly an inferior ontology. Anyway, Christ preached mercy, but Muhammed derogates mercy in favor of justice - when he's not busy fighting wars, that is.
I'll finish with a few thoughts and some of my own conclusions:
To put it another way, based on my reading of the Koran, hadith, and the life of Muhammed, I don't think the militant extremists are the ones who have corrupted the Koran. I think they have it exactly right. I think it's the Muslims, like my friend those who actually believe in getting along with others - who have "corrupted" the Koran. I applaud them for doing it, obviously. It warms my heart to see the Kurds in northern Iraq creating such a civilized community for themselves amidst all the surrounding violence and turmoil, and despite all that has been done to them. I applaud all of that. But, Muhammed wouldn't applaud it, so let's just be clear about that. And that is what makes Islam dangerous: the closer you get to its core - the closer you get to the hadith and to Muhammed - the more dangerous it gets. Yet, this enduring seed is impenetrable. It's like trying to get rid of a wart; you can try to get rid of the dead skin and the "growth," but until you drill down and get that virus that's at the root, it keeps coming back.
There's an expression: the problem with communism is communism, but the problem with capitalism is capitalists. Whether you agree with that or not, the point it is trying to make is that, with communism, it is the idea itself that is flawed; with capitalism, on the other hand, it's not the idea that is flawed, but the way it is practiced. (Again, I'm not interested in anyone arguing about whether that's true; the point is to see the kind of distinction being drawn.) Well, I would say the same thing about Islam and Christianity: the problem with Islam is Islam, and the problem with Christianity is Christians. In other words, Christianity would be a really great thing if people actually emulated Christ, but they don t always. But, for all the peace-loving Muslims out there (and I don't deny they are out there) who believe in religious tolerance, and love and compassion even for non-Muslims - for all of them, Muhammed is not someone to be emulated, but, rather, someone who must be overcome. I do agree that there is an important epistemological distinction that must be made..but to bring the two together, Christians need to uncover Christ, while Muslims need to bury Muhammed.
