In F.E. Peters' Course, One God, Three Faiths
, Judaism, Chritianity, and Islam are compared and contrasted using themselves as their own perspectives. To clarify, Peters makes no judgment on the validity of the religions, merely pronounces what a subscriber to that belief would say about that religion. Each religion is evaluated in its own light, on its own merit. Historical context is also weighed against the religion as a framework to show the development and spread.
Here are 2 chapters that pertain to my points. If you will partake in the inevitable debate to follow, make sure you have downloaded and listened to each chapter in full. To download, right-click link and choose Save Target As...Chapter 7Chapter 8
On to edifying my point of view. Islam, violent and corrupt from the inception.
Islam differs from the other Abrahamic religions in a few significant ways. First, islam was started and spread by one man. God spoke through only one man; Mohammed. When Mohammed spread God's supposed word, it was directly, as though God had spoken directly through Mohammed and not in stories, parables, or accounts.Myth #1: "Islam is a peaceful religion."
Mohammed himself led raids on unsuspecting travelers, to rob and kill, after he became power hungry in Medina. Justified then by Allah changing his word so that these activities would be blessed. Go figure, God changes his message to accommodate Mohammed, so says Mohammed. He became frustrated in Mecca where fame did not feed his ego. Though fairly successful in Mecca at gaining adherants to the new monotheistic belief, it simply was not enough. Going to Medina proved to be the ego boost that Mohammed may have sought. Or it could have been the poison to his ego that twisted the fate of the movement. Either way, things changed significantly in medina for Mohammed, islam, muslims, and those unfortunately in contact with them. Notice how slowly islam spread though the original Meccan style message of peace and dedication to the one true God, but then took off when Mohammed introduced violence, thievery, murder, probably rape, into the permissable acts of muslims. So, this is also where the infamous surra states that mulims shall seek out the infidel to convert or kill. Since this surra happened chronologically after the more peaceful Mecca surras, it overshadows the former. Mohammed personally gave islam its model of violent action. It is not a new radical development, the founder himself introduced it and practiced it 'successfully' enough to have islam spread by the sword to much of the unsuspecting middle east. Islam spread to subjugate people to Mohammed's ego and rule.
Any claims by moderates or pacifists to say that islam has been distorted into a violent religion are liars and fools, obviously ignorant of their own history.Myth #2: Mohammed was just a messenger of God.
Maybe in the beginning in Mecca he could have continued that ruse, but true colors became apparent once power became attainable through his Medinan fan club. Once praised and treated like the prophet he wished to be, he readily went to Medina to assume a position of primary power over the startegic town. First order of business was to exploit the citizenry, and begin instilling a grudge against Mecca for rejecting him. Unsurprisingly this is when the words of Allah began to change tone and theme. Violence became the way to his riches, fame, and power. Now that he had an army of mujahdeen, he molded the word of Allah to fit his will. Raids on innocent caravans travelling to Mecca choked commerce in Mecca and made Mohammed wealthy and powerful. Bow to islam or die.Myth #3: If a religion or idea is changed or modified over time, the religion or idea maintains its original integrity, value, and intent.
Well, this is just obviously a rational argument, but a key point to consider. Many ideas, philosophies, religions, etc. do evolve over time mostly due to cultural influences (eg. Buddism, Catholicism) or but doctrinal disputes (eg. Protestantism). Scientology has become a religion due to the number of kooks that adhere to it and demand it be viewed that way. Weak minded people in the masses allow it to happen to avoid conflict, so the craziness spreads. And as a great xample of someone's idea growing past its intended scope....Jedi now has been listed as a religion. Think George Lucas really intended that to happen?
My point on this is interesting, because it is assumed by many that the violence inherent in islam has been a defect in thought or teaching that has developed over the centuries, more specifically recently with the emergence of the term "militant islam". Many religions, especially the Abrahamic, grew from peaceful and political origins into the violent years. Violence was not necessarily a premise of those religions or cultures. But islam is different in that the very founder, mouthpiece of Allah himself not only procalimed violence and thievery, but had the audacity to claim that Allah blessed those actions, all but proclaiming war on any non-muslim and actually proclaiming war on Mecca. Violence in the seeds of islam, from the founder himself. There is no recent development of violence...it was there since the beginning.
So, the myth that moderate muslims or liberal muslims actually practice legitimate true islam
is FALSE. They practice a version of islam that has been picked over with only the palpable parts used. Not islam as Mohammed had meant it or practiced it. Mohammed would not consider them muslims because you do not pick and choose which surras from Allah you obey at your pleasure, you submit to all of Allah's will and words. Seems reasonable, they are words from the most high and holy creator.Conclusion:
So in conclusion, I have taken a very simple and straightforward look at the origins of Islam as the Islamists have made it. Now, keep in mind that many commenters on this blog have been reduced to simply throwing stones at me, trying to discourage me from thinking that I, one lone man, can erradicate the scourge of islam from the face of the Earth. Not one has posed an argument with any research or veracity behind it. Most, if not all arguments towards my stance have just been denying that I could be correct or accusing me of hatred....like that intrinsically makes me wrong. I wish to point out that one man, Mohammed, started this mess so it should logically be possible for one man to stop it.