Postage for Pakistan and other parts of the planet

Monday, November 19, 2012

You Muslims out there, help me to understand if I have this wrong

I think the key point here is that if Muhammad cannot be criticized because he is "the Prophet" and, indeed, must be imitated in all things, if this is true, then Muslims are bound to murder people like us, that is, those in the "World of War" (consider the language ... man!), we who are dimmi.
And if this is correct (I'm just doing the logical progression here, folks ... if my logic is faulty, let me know), then there are no "good" Muslims vs. "bad, radical, terrorist" Muslims. There are only poorly formed Muslims, those who don't know their faith, vs. those who are well formed and know the story of Mohammed, who know their religion and what it requires, and who accept it even though it is on its face, by the natural law, and by definition so patently crazy, so, dare I say, evil.
After all, any religion that says it's OK to ram an arrow in someone's eye for singing a couplet goes against God, especially when that person poses no threat against you. It's really, "I don't like your opinion, so I'm going to kill you."

That's evil, because only God knows peoples' hearts. It's evil because, even if someone's heart is black as coal and their views so displeasing to God as to warrant eternal damnation, God says, "Vengeance is mine"! God says, "You shall love your enemies.... Bless those who curse you.... He who rejects you, rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.... Shake their dust from your feet."

It's not, "Shake their dust from your feet after you ram an arrow through their eye."
Furthermore, since such definitely goes against the mind of God (to the extent we can know it, granted), and because anything that is against the truth of God is evil by definition, I can't see how the story related in the link is thus anything but evil. As such, it shows Mohammed's incapacity to be God's messenger, let alone the bringer of true religion to mankind. Quite the opposite, actually.
Have I fundamentally missed something? If so, what? I'm not being insincere. I want to know.
For instance, do Muslims have some recognition of Muhammed like Catholics do of the Church? That is, we believe she is made of sinful members, of members needing redemption for their sins by Christ's loving sacrifice on the cross. However, the sins of her members don't obliterate the truths held and taught by the Church.
Similarly, do Muslims believe Mohammed was sinful as all men are, but that even so, his message is true? So they ignore -- even condemn -- the times when he did bad things (just like Catholics ignore and condemn the actions of John XI, Stephen VI and Formosus, Boniface VIII, Alexander VI, etc.) and focus instead on the message? I don't see that happening, but maybe it's just hard for the message to get through here in the West for any number of good reasons.
If it is correct, i.e., that Muslims see him as sinful but his message as true, then I'd like textual proof from some sura of the Koran, some hadith, something from sharia, etc.


  1. The Muslim world is incredibly diverse. I would suggest befriending a Muslim and then after a while asking about this passage. You say above, "be charitable, be kind." I don't think there is much benefit in an outsider saying, "in order to be a good Muslim, you must logically be x." Nor do I believe this is charitable. In fact, giving a Muslim the space to think critically about Islam, rather than being forced into a hardened position, is probably the best hope there is for conversation. To take a counter example, Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, gorge it out. I've not met very many 1 eyed Christians. But logically and literally, that is what Jesus teaches!Either you are a bad christian with two eyes or a good one with no eyes. Obviously, Christians interpret this differently.

    1. Dear Anonymous, thank you for the generous and thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it.

      I think you make a good point about an outsider looking at the "eye, pluck it out" passage. However, I ... and, sincerely, help me out here ... I don't see how it's uncharitable to say, "Hey, I'm looking at this, and it seems to walk like a duck, it seems to quack like a duck, it seems to *look* like a duck. Help me understand how it's not a duck." Maybe I'm just totally clueless (a possibility, I'll grant), but I don't see how that's uncharitable. In my mind, I'm just making what seems to be a logical conclusion.

      Being self-employed at home, and living in a rural part of SE Pennsylvania, I come across precious few Muslims. In California, I knew a few. In college, I was good friends with one. But that was before I know what I do now (or what I think I do) and before I, frankly, cared about any of this, so we never discussed this sort of thing. I was a huge relativist back then, and it was the late '80s/early '90s. Radical Islam was confined, so we thought, to Lebanon and the Palestinians. It was so easily dismissed back then, especially by me, who prided himself with knowing the Muslim mind having lived in Iraq and Saudi Arabia as a child (I know; ridiculous, eh?). I had known so many wonderful, loving, kind, compassionate, caring Muslims. It upset me when they got a bad rap in the press and in the culture. My buddy Mohammed (his family called him "Mike," oddly enough) was hyper-intelligent and a load of laughs and as devout as you could get. He didn't pull out a prayer rug at work, but he took his faith seriously. I admired and respected that, just as I admired and I respected him.

      I wish we were still in contact so we could talk. Too bad. But since we can't and since I know of no others, I wrote this post. I'm sincerely looking for perspective. Oh well.

      Again, thanks for your contribution to this discussion, for making a good point, and for giving me something to think about. Like I said, I really appreciate it.


When commenting, be charitable, be kind, be loving. Say nothing you would not say to Jesus himself.