In his speech Sunday night, Obama claimed that those who use violence as a means to advance Islam are practicing a perverted form of Islam. Since Islam is essentially a religion that obligates its believers to emulate Mohammad's life practices and Mohammad used violence and terror to advance his religion, it is nonsense to claim that people who believe they are using violence and terror to advance Islam are practicing a perverted form of Islam. In the context of Islam, they are not radical, however radical they are as human beings.
Yes, most people who think of themselves as Muslims are not themselves violent in their practice of the religion. Many are good people. Nonetheless, those of us who are not practicing Islam have often observed that far too few Muslims are openly critical of those who use violence or terror to advance the religion. Well, there is a very logical reason why Muslims do not offer such criticism as much as good people should. They cannot criticize the present-day advocates of violence against non-Muslims without making an implied criticism of Mohammad himself for using violence and terror to spread his religion. They must be silent. Their silence is in some part due to fear, but it is also due to the fundamental beliefs of the religion itself. Many of those Muslims who do not themselves use force to make others observe Islam make "charitable" contributions to organizations that advocate or actually use force for that purpose.
Contrary to Obama's claim that we owe Muslims all of the rights we usually allow people under the freedom of religion, we do not owe this religious freedom to any religion that advocates the use of force to make others practice that religion. Freedom of religion, as with all freedom of conscience, has to have a foundation in the prohibition of the use of force against others as a means to practice the religion. Given that prohibition of force, we can and should allow others their freedom of conscience, even as we claim the exercise of our own freedom of conscience.
Given that Islam is in essence the emulation of Mohammad, we can very reasonably ask if Mohammad were alive today, would we allow him to enter the United States? I would not allow him in. He is much too dangerous, too violent, and too committed to terrorism. Neither would I allow those who followed his commands to commit violence against non-believers to enter the U.S. In doing so, I would not be in violation of anyone's legitimate claim of freedom of religion. I would be protecting most Americans from violence.
Finally, an answer to the lack of self-policing by Muslims. Maybe we should also ask where the line is between a religion, a political movement, or some other type of movement.
ReplyDeleteIslam is a convolution of religious belief and governance by the state as an agent of that religious belief.
ReplyDelete