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.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Yibel , May 27, 2012
21:34 because men are not equal in the eyes of Allah.
21:37 He commanded us to not make them equal.
21:40 For example, I have the right to marry a Christian or Jewish girl,
21:45 but it is not permissible for a Jewish man to marry a Muslim girl.
21:49 This is correct. I am not calling for equality.
21:53 When I go to Britain or Europe, I have the same right -- my blood and
property are inviolable.
21:58 In exchange, their blood and property are also inviolable through this
peace treaty.
22:02 Their blood and property have no protection except through a peace treaty
or a dhimmi pact.
22:09 Thus Allah has commanded -- you can either accept it or reject it.
written by balam , May 28, 2012
written by Yibel , May 28, 2012
of Allah,
22:21 and you want your beliefs to apply there?
22:25 Omar Bakri: Yes.
22:25 Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants of the country
what they can do?
22:28 Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then
they may do so.
22:33 If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight
against them.
22:36 The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace
treaty, or war.
22:43 The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us.
22:47 Their blood and property are not inviolable.
22:49 It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me.
22:54 It is in your interest, you who say that you do not believe in Islam,
22:58 to accept that there be a peace treaty or dhimmi pact between us.
23:04 The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari’a,
23:06 but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari’a. That’s the way it
is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war.
23:15 The general rule is that the blood and property of infidels are permissible
for Muslims.
23:20 The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people
23:23 until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and I am the apostle of
Allah.”
Sheikh Omar moved to Britain from Syria in 1958 and became an Islamic zealot. He worked tirelessly to make the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir into a formidable organization in the UK. He founded the now-banned organization Al-Muhajiroun, to which several of the 7/7 bombers belonged. He is the mentor and close associate of Anjem Choudary, the Ilford firebrand. He fled Britain in 2004 to escape prosecution, and now lives in Lebanon. What he says is straight out of Reliance of the Traveller and Saudi school textbooks, and is taught in mosques throughout the world, including the US, UK, Canada, etc. - the obligation to spread Islam by force.
written by 1proudkaffur4life , May 28, 2012
And he build up a smokescreen.
Namely the question, who GRANTS these "individual" Rights to the citizen of the state? Well of course states, which enforced rules and regulations put together over a long period of time, ending basically in the establishment of the "Universal Human Rights", which is supposed to binding to all the countries who signed them, except of course many Islamic counties refused to sign them...
While the "Islamic Theocrazy" gives rights to "unbelievers" and devout Muslims, the Non-Islam countries do not
distinguish or draw such lines in regards to "Faith/NON-FAITH". So in the end what can be seen here is the comparison between two different societies. Societies with are so far apart, that in one a woman wearing "Nail-polish" can be harassed by the religious police, while on the other extreme one has people like "Lady Gaga" who dared to get on stage in a dress made out of meat. While I find this repulsing, it is by far less repulsing then the killing of people because they have different opinions about a deity for which in ALL of KNOWN history no proof was ever provided. While some people got bend out of shape over the "Meat-dress" the only death-threats against her came from "Islamic" Indonesia!
The point is, that the "Islamic" Cairo declaration of "human rights" states very clearly that ANY Islamic society worth any salt, has to be based on Sharia-Law. So it does not matter if this "Sheikh" will be called a deluded Muslim, as he based his opinion on the very same Sharia ALL really DEVOUT Muslims must work to ENFORCE. But some Muslims rather do not want to say what their goals are...
written by Yibel , May 29, 2012
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Sharia is Tyranny.
written by abc , May 30, 2012
Does that mean we are all undefeated sons of god??
Man you proper messed up!
written by 1proudkaffur4life , May 30, 2012
In Islam Adam and Eve were just driven out of paradise, while in Christianity Adam and Eve "died" and became "sinners" passing this state on to all people. In the New-Age corner of Christianity there are some interesting concepts to be found if one wants a modern religion and needs some deity to feel safer. :-)
In any case in Islam it is stoned-gawd allah who predetermined people to hell. It is like Jesus would have finished the "Good Shepherd Story" by tossing the lost sheep down the next valley to its death cursing and telling it "because you strayed from the right path I'll KILL YOU".
Sons of God?
Because Adam sinned, the divine spark in humans has been buried deep within a person. So while humans have the POTENTIAL to be the sons and daughters of God, because Adam and Eve did not reach this, no other human can get to this stage of being able to express this divine spark or godly nature. Also because humans have FREEDOM they make the choices and not some gawd. I do not know who said this, but to the extent a person displays goodness one can see the divine spark or divine nature in him/her.
Of course these are all some man-made concepts and does not mean this has any bearing on reality. Another big difference between Islam and Christianity is this that the Christian ideas could develop over time, while Islam is stuck in a 7 century mix of paganism Jewish Lore and some Christian ideas add to it the rumblings of a uneducated man.... In Christianity one has the big split between catholicism and protestantism even though this too led to fighting and war, which in the end shows that most religions can't be used to really establish peace here (if it will ever be possible trough ANY organized religion I doubt...)
These muslims claim to have solutions for all the problems of humanity when they are not able to address any of their own problems. They are full of glee when there are financial crises in Europe an America that they claim that islam will rescue with its special brand of economics and finance-theories. Why don't they implement these theories in their own miserable countries before flaunting their raw half-baked nonsense on others? Their islamic economics is supposed to be superior to Adam Smith, Keynes, Milton Friedman, Paul SDamuelson, Irving Fisher,etc. What a laugh! These a*****es will not bat an eyelid when they will start claiming Newton, Einstein etc as muslims. That is islam , the only con-game charading as a "religion".