Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The 'Perfect' Book

Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, are the first to proclaim the miracle that is the Quran. How do we know that it is a miracle? Because, supposedly, it is written in the purest Arabic; the style, form, grammar, and eloquence of which has never been matched. We are told that this point in particular is not up for debate.
Fine, let us take it to be true that the grammar of the Quran is without error - but what of its content? Why, when verses or entire chapters are highlighted as being obviously barbaric and misogynistic are we given the run-around? "You're misinterpreting, you don't understand the context, the language is too pure for our simple brains to decipher."
Really? And yet it is this very same language which is used to establish the truth and perfectness of the Quran in the first place, is it not? Why is it that a verse which says to give alms to the poor is decipherable, while a verse which stipulates beheading, slavery, and stoning are acceptable practices needs to be looked at 'in context.' What context? Did early Muslims spread Islam by killing and enslaving people or didn't they? History tells us this is undoubtedly true.
I don't care, and neither should you, that the Quran stipulates slave girls can be freed or even married to their masters, which apparently proves God's goodness. "Take slaves, sure, but after a while it's okay to free them or even marry them (against their will)." The point is that the book clearly condones slavery and numerous other actions which today are universally considered human rights abuses.
It's time to stop making excuses. Nothing will change until Muslims of all ethnic backgrounds admit, openly, that the Quran is NOT the perfect word of the creator of the universe.
Don't hold your breath.

Monday, November 3, 2014

Islamaphobia 2.0

How many groups like ISIS do you want to see pop up around the world before you start taking the issue of religion seriously?
Spare me your half-assed attempts to rationalize. "This is not religion." Sure it is, it just isn't your interpretation of religion. This is a direct result of the 'tolerance' you speak of. It is a direct result of the fallacy known as 'Islamophobia.' There is no such thing. Every time we allow these religious types to cow us into submission (be it Danish cartoons or forcing young girls to wear Hijab) we are giving up ground. Tolerance is not one group being allowed to walk all over another in the name of religion. Multiculturalism does not mean you are forced to tolerate an idea or a group for fear of violent backlash.
The idea of 'Islamophobia' is a new one, and it has been used by Muslims (whether you agree with their interpretation of Islam or not is immaterial, they see themselves as good, practicing Muslims) as a way to silence any perceived criticism or slight as 'racist' or 'intolerant.' There is nothing racist or intolerant with not wanting little girls covered head to toe, and forced down our throats as 'dignity' or 'cultural/religious values'; there is nothing racist or intolerant with caricaturing an ancient Arab warlord; there is nothing racist or intolerant with wanting women to be literate and to have control over their reproductive cycle.
No, intolerance is imposing your cultural or religious values on others by force or the threat of violence, and this is exactly what is happening in almost every major secular, democratic society by Muslim groups whose worldview would be pleasing to the likes of ISIS.
'Tolerating' religious moderation is not the answer. As I've said before, if you grant it for one group you must allow it for all; or we will forever be hedging our bets and arguing about who is allowed to claim they are following their religion and who isn't. Never mind that some Saudi sheikh condemned the beheadings; it was Saudi-style fundamentalist Islam that midwifed the birth of this group and countless others like it. And how dare Saudi Arabia claim the moral high ground? Theirs is a nation where women are not even allowed to leave the house, let alone drive, without male supervision.
No, friends, I will not have it. Groups like this would not exist without religion, and it is past time we realize it and do something about it. I invite you to join me in doing so.