Saturday, March 18, 2006

“Fixing Islam”—an achievable objective, or a fool’s errand?

In this recent post here at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, a debate came up in the comments between a former Muslim (an apostate) and a self-proclaimed “Liberal Muslim” who is choosing to stay in Islam so he can “fix it.”

“Fixing Islam”—now that remark got me thinking. This, of course, refers to reforming the religion of Islam. Given this religion’s traditional nature, is fixing Islam even a feasible endeavor? Let’s examine that question in some detail.

Islam was founded by the alleged self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed in the seventh century, Muslim claims of “everyone since Adam has been a Muslim” notwithstanding. Without Mohammad, Allah, the Koran, and Islam would be unknown. Islam has never existed, and cannot exist, without invoking the example of Mohammed’s life, his actions, and his words. He is the religion's sole prophet, Islam’s solitary example, Allah’s lone conduit. Mohammed has been hailed by 14 centuries of Islam as the perfect soul, the model of behavior that every Muslim must strive to emulate.

So what did Mohammed spend his one life on earth doing? According to authentically Islamic sources, here is what Mohammed did in his lifetime:

  • He had political opponents murdered
  • He murdered prisoners of war, sometimes after the most brutal of torture
  • He seized the women and children of his victims, using them for sexual favors, taking them as wives and concubines, selling them into slavery for profit, or sometimes all of the above
  • He agreed to peace treaties with his enemies (“hudnas”), and then broke the agreements as soon as such action was to his advantage
  • He and his followers stole anything and everything they could get their hands on, in order to finance their movement and obscenely enrich themselves
  • He and his followers had repeated sexual intercourse with children

    This foregoing list is but scratching the surface. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” goes the Biblical parable. Judging Mohammed by his actions, he was plainly no prophet—rather, he was a pirate, terrorist, pedophile, thief, liar, and murderer.

    How can any honorable, decent movement or religion ever be based on or draw its inspiration from such a man? Any house built on such rotten foundations will itself be rotten, and be beyond fixing. Trying to fix such a structure would be a colossal waste of time and effort. Ask anyone in construction, or any engineer, and they can tell you—if the foundations of a building are unsound, the only solution is to start over from scratch.

    Throughout fourteen centuries, despite endless attempts to do so, no one has ever come close to succeeding in ‘repairing’ the Mohammedan faith. Why should we expect any future attempts to succeed? In fact, all such ‘Islamic reform movements’, like the Wahabis of Saudi Barbaria, have only managed to extend Islam’s inherent depravity.

    So here’s how I see it. Trying to ‘fix Islam’, considering the indisputable actions of its founder, is like trying to build a respectable political party based on Hitler’s crackpot racial theories. It simply can’t be done!

    Crossposted at Pedestrian Infidel

    8 comments:

    Stogie said...

    Imagine me standing up and applauding. "Hear, hear!"

    Well said! I love the analogy of Hitler's political party.

    Here's a well-worn saying that still fills the bill: "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

    Pastorius said...

    You make quite a case.

    Always On Watch said...

    Consider the details about MTP. I don't see hope of reform, either.

    Islam has never existed, and cannot exist, without invoking the example of Mohammed’s life, his actions, and his words. He is the religion's sole prophet, Islam’s solitary example, Allah’s lone conduit. Mohammed has been hailed by 14 centuries of Islam as the perfect soul, the model of behavior that every Muslim must strive to emulate.

    When the founder/leader is such that he was, hope for reform is so dim as to be invisible, IMO.

    I wish I weren't saying this. I wish I saw an alternative.

    Besides, the time factor is against any possible reform.

    Anonymous said...

    disagreed.

    history, and how its read, is never set in stone.

    it is fluid. christianity serves as the clearest example of this. compare, for example, 8th cenuty church doctrine, with 16th century christians like hobbes and locke.

    i'm quite confident of our ability to mold history to meet our objectives. changing history requires constructive engagement. not cowardice or polemic.

    Kiddo said...

    Ha, I think I'll link Anum Mahktar to, check outhis post. Seriously , check out Anums Truth on blogger. "Mushroom Cloud for America" is really the cream of the crop of intelligent Muslim posts that I've seen.

    Jason Pappas said...

    I have no trouble believing that some Muslims can select and omit aspects according to liberal sensibilities but I just don’t think you can keep Islamic revivals from returning to the original Islam of Mohammad in its vicious form.

    Why try? Why give lip service to a doctrine that can be used to justify atrocities even if you wouldn’t use it for that purpose? Why risk the continual backsliding into barbarianism when you can just jettison the whole problematic edifice? I don't see the motivation of trying to graft a moderate ethos on such a poor example such as Mohammad's.

    The Anti-Jihadist said...

    "History is fluid?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? I understand how the interpretation of history changes over time, but Mohammed the murderer simply cannot be interpreted or explained away, no matter how hard one tries. We know better.

    Call me naive or stupid, but I am convinced that there are some irreduceable truths out there to be found in history. Turning a murdering child molester like Mohammed into a saint to be emulated and loved is not only pointless, it's a huge injustice to Islam's countless victims over the centuries.

    Right-minded peoples, movements and nations never try to cover up or alter the truth. Instead, they learn from it.

    Whitewashing (i.e. 're-interpreting') Mohammed's numerous crimes is like canonizing Hitler. Both were bloody megalomaniacs with kindred philosophies. They are absolutely cut from the same cloth. The only difference is, Hitler had the technology at hand to kill far more, something Mr. Mo would be no doubt envious of.

    And anyone who tries to excuse the false prophet, or deny his crimes, is not part of the solution. They are part of the problem.

    Anonymous said...

    History is fluid is the same thing as saying that you learn from your mistakes.

    As far as the claim that Muhammad killed 120 year olds, there is a post about Jewish poets on my blog.

    He also didn't marry a 6 year old. That is perpetuated by sick Muslims and equally incorrect non-Muslim.

    Aysha was 16 at the time of his marriage to Muhammad.

    This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about: fixing Muslim errors about their own history.

    History is fluid, do you get it now?

    And yes, I'm staying in Islam to fix it. Weren't there whites who worked to abolish slavery? Germans who fought Nazism? I don't see what you don't get about it.

    The difference between me and you is in our belief in ourselves. I'm as familiar as you with the Islamic sources. You shy away from doing anything *to* them except to suggest that they be burned, or done away with. I say, I can leave my imprint on it.

    Muslims are doing it already. Amina Wadud is leading women in prayer. Allama Javed Ghamidi (of Lahore), is someone you should look up as well.