PARIS ATTACKS AND WHAT IT SHOWS ABOUT RELIGION AND ITS ALLIES
Posted on the Freethinker following the Islamist originated Paris attacks
November 2015. Islamic State took responsibility.
If in a hypothetical better world, had Islam not had violent commands in its
scripture, the Quran, which God supposedly dictated would the Islamist violence
have been as bad? Christians in some parts of the world are no better and the
Christian reconstructionist movement believes that stoning gays and adulterers
to death is God's will today. I would suggest that the state forces Islam and
Christianity to remove violent commands from their holy books. It will take
decades for that to be be workable though.
The reality is that Islamist terrorists come from Islam. If a religion is a
breeding ground for even a few terrorists it is to blame as a religion
especially if it teaches that violent scriptures were revealed by God. I am not
accusing all Muslims of being terrorists but of creating a religion in which
terrorists appear.
To those who say Islamic State is not really Muslim or Islamic -
Are you really in a position to judge what is really Muslim when you are not a
Muslim scholar?
The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the
forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."
Sura 8:17 - “It was not you who slew them; it was Allah who slew them”.
These texts go beyond seeing violence as a necessary evil but as something
sacred.
Are you in a position to say that Islamic State is a distortion of Islam? - that
does not mean it is not Islam and they could be uncompromising and overly strict
rather than a distortion.
Why do many ordinary Muslims anywhere in the world become ISIS - many of them
simply cannot have been brainwashed?
Why does it claim to be Islamic?
Why does it want to create a world that will enslave it as well as everybody
else to oppressive religious law?
Why does it tell the truth that the prophets it looks up to such as Muhammad and
Moses were murderers say of idolaters? Its prophet Jesus said that anybody who
did away with any command in the evil Old Testament - eg the command to kill gay
men by stoning - would be called dung in the kingdom of Heaven.
Why does it specialise in suicide bombings as if expecting a heavenly reward?
Why does it teach that God has the right to take life and therefore the right to
delegate or bestow that right on them?
Why does it teach the fact that there is nothing in the Koran like "love your
neighbour as yourself?" Many would say that failure to do that shows you are
making violence possible for your attitude to others falls short of what it
should be.
Why say IS is not Muslim when in fact the Koran's nasty vicious verses vastly
outnumber the ones calling for peace?
Why say Islam is great for its holy book says that killing one innocent person
is like killing the whole world - to exaggerate how bad evil is in order to
deter people is a form of bullying and hate? (It will do nothing to put
criminally minded people off and the Koran has its own idea of what an innocent
person is that differs from secular understanding.)
Why does it argue that its violent interpretation of the word of God in the holy
book is possibly valid? It cannot say that unless there are violent texts in
that book. And it could be right or if wrong then it is still a reasonable or
understandable interpretation. If God likes violence and you engage in it in a
way he does not approve of then it is hardly a huge mistake considering he is
usually okay with violence anyway. Violent scriptures give an excuse for
violence. A religion with violent messages from God be it Islam or Christianity
is giving evil people an excuse for violence - giving the means to make an
excuse. The less chance there is for making an excuse the better. Excuses should
not be enabled by religion. The better the excuse, the more the religion is to
blame.
Sura 17:96 is about the doctrine of abrogation where God cancelled verses he
revealed in the Koran. It is assumed by some silly scholars and politicians that
God is limiting his authority and giving us freedom to question. But is he?
Questioning in their book really means, "Maybe I should not obey his bad
commands or his commands I don't like?" Questioning in the honest sense
means, "Maybe if I think this book preaches peace and its nasty commands can be
passed over then I am wrong?!" God abrogating verses he authorised is yet
another demonstration of authority so he is not. Abrogation is as much authority
as non-abrogation - sorry it is more for you are asking people to believe that
God who makes no mistakes or changes his mind does change his mind! The fact
remains that the doctrine gives nobody the right to assume any bloody text in
the Koran is abrogated. The ones that are scrapped are clearly indicated.
If man is violent and makes errors that sometimes do harm, it is to be expect
that any religion coming from man is not intrinsically peaceful or good. A
man-made faith will do harm at least at times. Those who say bad people acting
in the name of religion are not really part of religion are just stupid or
politically correct or they confuse morality and religion (the two are not
exactly the same). They go to the extreme of not mentioning the violence and
lunacy commanded in the Koran or Bible by God.
Even if ISIS were not really Muslim, the fact remains that it is still a
religion. It could be seen as a Muslim heresy. It is still a demonstration of
how faith in a supernatural force or god can lead to bloodshed. Faith after all
is violence in the sense that you act as if you know what you do not know and
that is always risky and harm often follows. It is doing violence against your
knowledge that you do not know.
I think a devout Christian who has converted to Islam and who knows of the
violence in the Bible that was commanded by God and for which Jesus never
apologised and was okay with could easily turn into an ISIS convert. The
openness to violence is already there.