When writing with regards to religion, especially the religious beliefs of others, there’s always an element of contempt provided by my more secularized brothers and sisters in humanity, which is in no way surprising for the points of view they often subscribe to, take relativists for our first example. By their reasoning having an argument over whether or not Islam has been built upon strong historic evidence makes about as much sense as an open letter, one which argues passionately over an indeterminate subject, lamb curry over beef, boxers over briefs and the like, this faulty comparison comes about due to the low regard in which they hold faith. Nevertheless you’ll quickly get wise to the fatal flaw in their thinking, since studying the historicity of an event isn’t ultimately opinion based, people needn’t decide history based upon personal preference, they can venture into an honest study of the data, seeking out both ancient writings alongside of surviving physical evidence. Subjects like this inform faithful believers, they’re part of the foundation whereupon witting theists construct for themselves their functioning world view. Hatred of the subject by relativists is wholly unfounded therefore, although the sorts of questions they pose are of use in that they’re illustrations, illustrations that’ll form in part today’s article.
Atheism, Scientism, Utilitarianism, these are usually attractive prospects to the sort of person who would delight to see religion retire full fold from public life, whereas sexuality and the right to slay the unborn must be paraded in the streets before young children’s eyes your beliefs however with truth to them must be hidden beneath a bushel, although it’s Humanism as opposed to the previous four that’ll be next my source of dispute. As it’s cynical humanist inquiry, which for all its rampant supporters and dogged repetition has dulled severely the critical antenna of many an unwary listener, in addition the consequence of so massive an onslaught has caused for commonplace people to ask upon hearing talk of religion ‘why can’t we be friends?’
Rather than answering their question however, I’d prefer to highlight how this is in fact common on the lips of ordinary people, why is that the case when the question in context is so overwhelmed by anti-theistic sentiment, anti-theistic as the question implies that challenging each other’s religious belief causes enmity between good natured people, which it clearly does not do. Does this mean that everyday people are thoroughgoing humanists, methinks not, instead I’d suggest that the general populous merely pay lip service to pluralistic, humanist ideals for fear of an all too common fallout that follows from the secularized when people choose to express their faith. Thus those who espouse humanism are more often than not unaware of that which career humanists believe in, everyday people aren’t humanists nor do they understand how humanism posits truth claims of its own, doing so as it denies the existence of Allah, Zeus, Aphrodite or any other supernatural figure people may value, neither does an average person repeating humanist ideology know of how the belief denies the possibility of an immaterial soul. They’re in truth nominal humanists, their speech therefore you’ll hear being with soft soap awash, since despite rewording objections that deny believers in God from expressing that belief, they’re also of the mind which thinks challenging someone else’s viewpoint an unthinkable crime.
Let’s examine together why certain groups of people plainly can’t forge friendship under some ideologies, as the question which forms today’s topic title is often the sort which makes for our first stumbling block when beginning honest dialogue. Yet I had also felt it fitting to request the company of my Muslim brothers (and sisters) so to answer the earlier question which nominal humanists often pose. Hereinafter I’d prefer asking directly of my Muslim guests the humanist’s objection, albeit worded slightly differently, which I’m certain they’ll answer with their Islamic faith firmly in mind. Can we be friends then, are there any obvious objections to be raised beforehand if indeed that is our goal?
If your immediate reaction is to say there’s absolutely nothing impeding our friendship, I’m forced into correcting you upon the matter, although that’s not owing to some dislike of the idea, rather we’re incapable of forming any semblance of friendship according to your Islamic doctrine, what’s more should any Muslim dare to attempt making a friend of me they’re in danger of Allah’s wrath (Qur’an 5:51). Devote special attention to this passage with me, as it goes on to say: ‘O ye who believe! (Muslims) Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.’ Doesn’t this single passage put the question to rest in the eyes of faithful Muslims, and whether people twist the word via translation to mean allies, helpers or defenders, shouldn’t we be receiving the message loud and clear, the message being that association with Christians and Jews in any meaningful sense is wrongful conduct.
“it is forbidden for a person to donate money for what would lead to sin, such as donating in his will money towards building a church, a nightclub, a gambling casino, towards promoting the alcohol industry or for building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs.” ― Fatwa Council for Islamic interpretations of laws in Islam
Every example made is further proof of how whether you accept fatwas, hadiths or the Qur’an they’re each alike in that they espouse enmity and falsehood. Is not this the source of our time’s upheaval? Furthermore doesn’t it require of us an honest challenge, challenge made by Christians, Jews and the secularized, all bar the Muslims would have to cry yes, yes resoundingly so, with my Muslim friends being excluded not because they wouldn’t prefer friendship just the same as anybody else, rather it’s because they’re disqualified from rejecting Allah’s commands while yet retaining the status of Muslim. Thus it would appear we’ve been turned around from that which the humanists presuppose, as the culprit of enmity and strife isn’t found in people openly debating faith, it’s quite the opposite actually. This point of mine isn’t particularly hard to demonstrate, simply ask yourself if ignoring the less pleasant Islamic texts would cause their words to rearrange someday so to better fit our liking, most certainly not, rather they’re writings people must condemn or be condemned by if we’re ever to forge lasting friendships together, by which I mean to say, when concepts like that of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb are allowed free rein to wax and be spread undisputed, where else can it lead us except to warfare. When translated properly you’ll find dar al-Islam meaning ‘house of submission’ whereas house of war would be an accurate reading of dar al-harb, the place wherein you’re most likely reading this article from.
Boston Marathon bombings, or perhaps dar al-harb according to Islamic tradition. Does Allah feel grieved for an estimated two hundred and sixty four injured by way of the bomb blast, or perhaps he’d show compassion in loving those of us who were killed for so senseless an explosion, one being an eight-year-old boy, unsurprisingly no, for Allah loves not unbelievers (Qur’an 3:32).
Muslims and non-Muslims Islam teaches are to engage in war fought unendingly, or at least until non-Muslims feel themselves humiliated and subdued (Qur’an 9:29), and whether you’re part of either house I’d certainly hope you’re made uneasy when hearing this, think moreover on what Islamic doctrine demands of its ‘good Muslims’, whilst being sure to remember that if you think yourself Muslim yet you’re not behaving in the upcoming fashion, you’re considered both an apostate and hypocrite according to Allah. Join me thus as we become authentic Muslims, Muslims who’re obliged to perform jihad under Allah’s command, we’re ordered in addition to murder apostates (Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). Slaughtering siblings, parents and children of yours may be perturbing however, if that’s the case please remember how we don’t call murder murder here in Islam, which makes every beheaded corpse and orphaned child worthwhile. When we’re done brutally slaying our nearest unbelieving friends and family members (there’ll be quite an awful lot considering chapter five verse fifty one of the Qur’an), we’re then duty bound to enter into war with the residence of the dar al-harb, they and their defenceless children are first to be seized by us, then beleaguered, next we shall lay in ambush for them, making use of every stratagem of war, their strongest we’re certain to slay in combat, whereas any who remain our Qur’an tells us to subjugate, levy taxes upon, and rape as the spoils of war, doing so until they submit to the beauty of their rapist’s religion (Qur’an 4:24, Qur’an 9:5).
To your 21st century sensibilities perhaps raping a sobbing woman in front of her bloodied and battered husband doesn’t appeal, maybe you even consider sexually forcing yourself upon others wrong in some way, if so you’re overruling the judgement of Mohammed (Qur’an 4:24, Abu Dawud verse 2150), which would in turn mean you’re forfeiting your Muslim status (Qur’an 4:69), what’s more according to Islam you’ve been brainwashed by sinful Western culture into hating good deeds. Therefore any Muslim who refuses to wage war, slaughter apostates and rape their war booty is practising unbelief. How ironic is it then that people who claim to support human flourishing are themselves defending an ideology so hell bent upon the death and destruction of unbelieving men, women and children, perhaps they’re merely unaware of how systems of belief (suchlike Islam) posit truths as do they by their beliefs, truths which make demands of the religion’s adherents. Meaning when Christians battle through swords and ammunition they’re casting aside their Saviour’s command, refusing hence to practice that which you’ll find in Christian scripture, whereas if Muslims think me their friend or neighbour in the sense which Jesus of Nazareth taught they’re rejecting their god.
Are there certain belief systems that simply couldn’t have been of God, doctrine and practices which cause nothing except strife and heartache for believers and non-believers alike? If yes how could we discern divine revelation from that of man’s man made hoax, with ease since we’re already in agreement that torture (Qur’an 8:12, Death of Kinana ibn al-Rabi), paedophilia (Qur’an 65:4), Satanic Verses and bogus prophesy (Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 4, hadith 3329) come only by way of false prophets.
Practised to its logical conclusion it would appear Islam makes of men mad dogs, yet why is it that others refuse acknowledging so obvious an observation when applied to Islamic doctrine. Especially bizarre is how the secularized rain condemnation upon differing though equally distasteful systems of belief, which implies they’re well aware of how white supremacy (as an example) precludes whites befriending non-whites when earnestly embraced, and he who would claim himself being one yet also reckoned other races his equal we’d think an unashamed hypocrite. So through what logic do people condemn racists who aren’t exemplars of their racist ideology while remaining inept with respects to nominal Muslims, peace-loving Muslims who by their actions have shown themselves apostates having renounced their doctrine of death. Defenders of Islam would nowadays do best to claim incompetence rather than suffer an obvious alternative, an alternative which makes of them liars caught in the act of defending an indefensible ideology, an ideology in the guise of religion that for their efforts has been allotted legitimacy wholly unfitting its gruesome political ambitions.
― T. C. M