The Bane of Islamic Supremacy
The goal of this article is to show that adopting a view of Islamic supremacy is logically flawed and practically destructive.
Please watch this video with me:
The frankness of the Muslim Imam in this
video is truthful to Islam’s true message. I grew up with this Islam
around. I belonged to a minority group in a small town in the Middle
East, where most residents of that town were Sunni Muslims. There are
probably four main points that this Muslims Imam admits directly:
- People, all people that is, have to be ruled under Islamic state.
- A Muslim in this state is at a higher value or status than a non-Muslim.
- A Muslim believes in the Divine command theory and rejects all forms of other ‘worldly’ governments.
- All forms of secular and worldly governments are rejected. No negotiation, and no “give-ins” by Muslims to any other form of government. Islamic form of government has to rule.
Islam has always been a religion and a
state throughout its history. Muhammad was a political leader as well as
a religious leader. Whether we like it or not, belief in the absolute
rule of Islamic state such as the one we saw in the video was always
there in Muslim societies. However, the coming of Islamic thinkers whose
circumstances made them influential, brought this trend to the surface.
When western countries started leaving third world countries, so as to
govern themselves, in the last century, the ground was ripe for
“bringing about” Islam. The coming of thinkers like Abu El’Ala’
Al-Maududi, Sayyed Qutb, etc. brought to the masses, through organized
movements, like “Muslim Brotherhood,” a mirage dream for every-day
Muslim. This is the dream of going back to establish the Muslim Khilafat
and attempt to relive the times of the guided Khalifs.
The masses do not know how the actual
times of the guided Khalifs were. They think it was a “rosy” period of
times for Muslims. The actual truth is far from it. Muhammad had
controlled Arabia through force. He destroyed many tribes, committed
mass-murders, assassinated most critics, and forced all others to pay
“protection money”, mafia-like style. The rest “accepted” Islam,
probably to avoid paying tribute money to the Meccan imperialists, and
to be left alone through paying nominal amounts of goods or money or a
combination of both.
The Muslim masses of our days, most of
them, do not know how many Arabian tribes celebrations took place all
over the peninsula when the news of Muhammad’s death arrived. However
this happiness did not last as many of them where attacked by Abu Bakr’s
thugs who went about destroying tribes, killing their leaders, and
forcing them to pay tribute money and goods to the Meccan power house
again.
The Muslim Masses do not know about the
inner circle political power struggles that took place to nominate a
Khalif. They do not know about the hate that Ayesha kept against the
house of Ali, a hate that ended up splitting Islam into Sunni-Shi’a
divide.
The Muslim masses of our days do not
know that the “rosy” guided Khalifs times was full of hate and anger as
all of the guided Khalifs ended up dying through murder, the ugliest of
which was probably the way Khalif Uthman was brutally attacked and
killed in his own home and in front of his own family.
In short, the guided Khalifs times were
times of turmoil for the Muslim Umma (nation). However, Islamic groups
of our days, like the Muslim Brothers and Hizbu El-Tahrir, ..etc Market
those bygone years as the most wonderful of human history.
Going back to the topic at hand, I admit
that many of the above points I mentioned above about the video, could
have been combined. However, I did separate them for a good reason. That
reason is to highlight different aspects of the Islamic belief system.
The first point highlights the Islamic state concept. The second
highlights the status of a Muslim in comparison to a non-Muslim. The
third stresses the conceptual Islamic belief in a “Divine Command”
theory. The fourth point stresses the “Imperialistic” nature of Islam
per se and its desire to ‘gobble up” all of the countries on this globe.
Wafa Sultan has said it much better than
I could ever say it when she spoke about how “Ugly” such a religion and
belief system is.
My goal in this article is to uncover the most basic assumption of a Muslim and to show its flawed reasoning.
A very basic belief of a Muslim is none
but his belief that he, as a Muslim, is the only “correct”
representative of God and God’s will on earth. This is his starting
point. This is what a Muslim believes in and what motivates him/her to
do what God commands him to do. What the Muslim thinks can be put in a
“valid” philosophical argument form. This form is deductive by nature.
It starts with two premises or axioms and reaches a certain conclusion:
Premise 1: Islam is the only correct belief system
Premise 2: God commands me to force this belief system on the whole earth and its residents
Premise 3: I am, as a Muslim, the sole representative of God’s command on earth
Conclusion: Therefore, I will always act in a way to force Islam on the whole earth.
A Muslim, by virtue of being a Muslim,
believes in Islamic supremacy. Islam rules over all other systems. A
Muslim rules over all other people who do not believe in Islam.
I do believe that the weakness of a
Muslim’s train of reasoning is apparent to anyone with a minimal ability
of critical reasoning. Who appointed a Muslim to be the carrier of the
mantle of truth? A Muslim may answer “God appointed me” then comes the
question “and how do you know that God appointed you”? The Muslim may
answer and say “Because Muhammad says so” or “because the Qur’an says
so”. Circular reasoning is the logical fallacy here. No one will accept
what the Muslim claims, but a believing Muslims. For others, who give no
credibility to the Qur’an or Muhammad, Islam is just a belief system
that they pretty much despise, and want it as far away from them as
possible. There is no external supportive evidence to Islam. What the
Muslim says can be reduced to pretty much “I believe in Islam because
Islam is truth” but no other people of good reason will accept such a
claim without supportive evidence.
Where does this analysis leave us? It
leaves us with the Muslim begging the question he started with because
of his circular reasoning. There is no objective support to the Muslims’
claim.
A Muslim may think that even if my
reasoning is correct, he/she – as a Muslim – has no problem in believing
in Islam. Let everyone else believe what they want. But I as a Muslim
will believe Muhammad and the Qur’an no matter what. This kind of
reasoning is also flawed. A Muslim cannot say that with good reason. Let
me explain …
Let us assume there are two religions,
Islam and Malsi (wording adopted from Ali Sina). Muslims believe they
will force their belief on all people and rule by force. Malsis believe
the same. In fact, Malsis believe that if any other belief system will
stand in their way, they will eliminate it and kill anyone who defends
it. Both Muslims and Malsis believe in the supremacy and “truth” of
their god over any other.
It is easy to see that the presence of
supremacist systems like Islam and Malsis will serve no purpose but the
destruction of millions of humans just because they do not believe in a
certain god.
Is a god who wreaks havoc worthy even of
any respect, let alone worship? I hope that it is evident that a
Muslims train of thought is flawed, and cannot, with good conscious, be
defended.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment