I’m certainly not an expert on that! But I am quite sure that he would not surrender his faith, and would not try to force anyone else to adopt his, and would not stop speaking to anyone willing to hear his words.
Jesus was a man of peace. He did not take up arms, forcibly convert people to his faith, or rule in this world.
Buddha likewise was a man of peace who lived a modest life.
When Christians or Buddhists engage in violence, they are perverting the teachings of their founders.
Islam, alternatively, has a deeply embedded foundation of violence at its core–violence promulgated by Mohammed on his enemies. When Muslims engage in violence, they are emulating the founder of their faith. This is why the vast majority of religious violence is fomented by Islamists.
Speaking the truth is not thoughtless, though it might be politically incorrect.
Islam must deal with the rot at its core: Mohammed conquered by the sword, forcibly converted people to his beliefs, murdered with his own hand, and took child brides. This is the example he sets for his followers.
People of Islam who wish it to be accepted as a modern faith must repudiate these acts of Mohammed, which are repugnant to modern life. Until they do, their faith–which is really a political philosophy tinged with religion–will be repugnant to most of humanity.
I don’t think that pointing to the barbaric acts of Mohammed is an ad hominem attack either on him or on Islam. Those actions, which are documented historically, are central to the creation narrative of the Islamic faith.
Continue reading the full article at High Plains Pundit.
No comments:
Post a Comment