Militant Scientologists Gun Down 15 People in Shooting Spree
Tuesday
The headline and the above paragraph are fiction. This was a way to illustrate how ridiculous it is for any non-Muslim to criticize anyone for holding a Muhammad cartoon contest.
In Islam, it is not okay to draw Muhammad or satirize Islam. Fine. Muslims shouldn't do it. But should that rule be applied to everyone, whether they are Muslim or not?
In the same way, if it is a sin for a Scientologist to criticize Scientology (and it is) a non-Scientologist can do it if they want to. We all know this. A person who is not a member of the religion can criticize it all they want. None of us are bound by the rules of a religion of which we're not a member. Obviously. Right? It should be obvious.
It used to be a Catholic rule that Catholics were not supposed to eat meat on Friday. In some places in the world, this rule is still in effect. Fine. Non-Catholics don't care, and don't worry about whether they eat meat or not on Fridays. But what if Catholics became offended when anyone ate meat on Fridays? What if they started killing non-Catholics who were found eating meat on Fridays? Would the pundits say the meat-eaters had it coming? Would they say that by having a hamburger barbeque in their backyard, they were obviously provoking the Catholics and got what they deserved? That would be ridiculous. Right?
What if they weren't just innocently and quite-by-accident having a hamburger barbeque, but knew Catholics didn't like it, and to prove they had the right to eat what they want, they went ahead and ate the burgers anyway? And then Catholics killed them for it? Now did they get what they deserved? Should they be criticized for provoking the Catholics? No. The Catholics are the ones to be criticized, and the rule that non-Catholics should follow Catholic rules — that is what should be criticized. Obviously.
What ought to be criticized is the Islamic rule that non-Muslims must follow Islamic rules.
This commentary is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here for your sharing convenience.
Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence.
4 comments:
Excellent analogy! Robert at OSINT News: www.osintdaily.blogspot.com
Agreed.
I don't want to play 'devil's advocate', and may be stating the obvious, but from an Islamic perspective, the view that "none of us are bound by the rules of a religion of which we're not a member" is merely a non-Muslim view not an Islamic one, where Islam is the religion concerned. Islamic supremacists, of course, view us as being bound (whether we will or no), and that this is Allah's dictum.
We might well question why non-Muslims think other non-Muslims should submit to the Islamic view; but I do not think this will persuade Muslims to relinquish this view.
A man named Joe emailed us with this important addition to the article. He wrote:
Great article!
You concluded:
"What ought to be criticized is the Islamic rule that non-Muslims must follow Islamic rules."
I agree, Islamic law should have no bearing on non-Muslims. But I would add that even if Islamic rule should apply to Muslims, violence and death threats by anyone and everyone should not apply to them. If there are crimes punishable by death in Islam, it should only be after the court of law has ruled that the person is indeed guilty (and only in a Muslim country that is ruled by Islamic law). Until then, if someone takes it in their own hands and they kill someone in the process, that person should also be guilty and should be punished by law.
America is not a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law so Muslims in America should not fear violence or death for breaking it, and neither should a non Muslim.
Thanks for this article.
I've read that 2/3 of the quran is about the INFIDEL. And NONE of it is good. THAT makes it our bloody D-U-T-Y to criticize it.
Post a Comment