Relax Infidel Scum – Islam is Just a Religion!
About Michael John ScottMichael Scott's greatest passion is his web magazine. He loves the company of the many talented writers and is grateful for the new friendships that have blossomed as a result of this next great adventure.
View all posts by Michael John Scott →
On May 20, the article ‘Draw Muhammad Day: Censorship, Sabotage, Threats and Murder‘, elicited hundreds of passionate responses. Some were reasonable and well considered, but, unfortunately, many were not. Charges of racism and ethnocentricity, by Muslims, because people drew pictures of Muhammad, as well as some comments that actually were racist and ethnocentric, littered the comment section.
To charge someone who speaks against Islam with being a racist, or ethnocentric, is the same as considering someone who speaks against Christianity, as anti-white, or anti-American. Both of these religions have adherents from every race, nationality, and ethnicity. Conversely, no ethnicity, race, or nationality, is composed of a population with anything close to 100% agreement on theology, philosophy or ideology. Even in a society claiming 90% Christian or Muslim adherents, within that 90%, the sectarian differences are often as disparate as those between a sect of one religion, and a denomination of the other.
These religions and ideologies, along with their accompanying dogma and political prescriptions, are choices. They are not inherent, or unchangeable, qualities of a being. To claim adherence to a religion is done regardless of ones physical traits, race, or ethnicity; and, to criticize a religion, should be done with the same disregard for those factors. To scrutinize, and criticize, the writings of Muhammad, is no more an attack on Arabic people than criticizing Christianity, or Buddhism, should be misconstrued as an attack against Americans, or the Nepalese.
Even when a country imposes a state religion, it cannot mandate or define the beliefs of every individual that lives within it’s borders; try though it may. The individual retains the power to choose to comply, agree, deny or rebel. It is impossible to legislate, or otherwise demand, the religious, or ideological, conscience of another. People will only believe what they choose to believe.
To assert that Muhammad was a travelling salesman, who created a cult to gain power, and committed heinous crimes against humanity, is simply one individuals interpretation of the available facts, or perhaps, is just their opinion. It is of no real effect to anyone who chooses to believe otherwise, and makes no derogatory statements of anyone based on their particular race, nationality, or ethnicity. Likewise, to assert that Jesus is a constructed figure, based on an anti-establishment socialist, and merged with the astrologically based mythology of Horus, in no way equates to an insult against any nationality, ethnicity, or race.
Religion is not culture. Religion exists within a culture. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting a culture.
To criticize Islam, or Christianity, is not an indictment, or insult, against an entire culture. A Pakistani person, born, raised, and educated, in Pakistan, who chooses to believe in Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism, is just as much a Pakistani person, culturally, as the Pakistani Muslim. Therefore, respectfully using Pakistan as an example, to question the teachings of Islam should not be considered an attack on Pakistan, or the Pakistani culture. Likewise, to argue against Christianity should in no way be considered an insult against Americans.
Faith is not a quality of being. There are many people in the world unable to have faith in what they consider indefensible claims. These people come from every country, race, and ethnicity on the planet. Faith requires the acceptance of something as truth, despite lack of evidence, and in the case of religion, often in the face of contrary evidence. As Mark Twain once said, “Faith is the act of believing what you know ain’t so.” For many people, this proposition is not simply insulting, but impossible.
An individual has the right to objectively consider, analyze, critique, or even disrespect, an idea, or belief. Ideas are advanced through criticism and debate. Progress is born out of conflict, as much as it is out of cooperation. The conflict of ideas, causes the analyses that brings understanding. To deny challenge is to preclude rational discourse and progress.
To be the adherent to a religion such as Christianity, or Islam, and mock the tenets of the other faith based religion, is a feat of mental gymnastics, difficult to comprehend. To be the adherent of either religion, and mock the other, not only on it’s tenets, but based on the ethnicity or race one associates with that religion, displays a form of psychological self-stimulation that benefits nothing.
A religion may be shared by a large group of people, of a certain ethnicity or nationality, yet this does not make it an inherent quality of that ethnicity or religion. A religion may be shared by a large group of people of a certain race, yet this does not make it an inherent quality of that race. Religion is a personal choice. It is not a quality of being.
Draw Muhammad Day was about freedom of speech, and an individuals right to challenge the idea of a god without being threatened, or forced, into compliance with another person’s ideology. It was not about race, ethnicity or nationality. It was about ideas, and the freedom to have them, and express them.
None of us has the right to not be offended. To be offended is to make a personal choice; a subjective judgement. We decide if something offends us. If an idea offends us, we can choose to dismiss it, debate it, counter it, ignore it, or ridicule it. We can not silence it by threatening or harming its proponents.
For someone to criticize Muhammad, or Christ, is not the same as criticizing a person that chooses to have faith in them. One may find it offensive that another criticizes what one cares so much about, but it is very different than someone criticizing an individual, a culture, an ethnic group, or a race.
To be impacted by another person’s new, or differing, idea, is not the same as being impacted by another person’s fist, blade, or bullet. Contradictory ideas, or beliefs, are not assaults against a person and cannot be responded to with violence. Reacting violently to an idea, image, text, or any other medium of peaceful, yet perhaps offensive to some, expression of an idea, is a choice. It is the choice of the person who acted violently, not of the person who expressed an idea that someone else deemed offensive. Violence is not the appropriate response to peace.
To draw Muhammad was not an idea created to insult Muslims, let alone anyone of a certain ethnicity, nationality, or race. The goal was to express support for the rights of free speech, and freedom of expression, regardless of who may be offended. The goal was not to offend. The goal was to make a statement, irrespective of who may choose to be offended by it. To draw Muhammad was a statement by individuals that will not allow their freedom of speech, or their freedom to express and challenge ideas, to be censored, or silenced.
Drawing Muhammad was a peaceful protest against the threats, violence, and murder of those who have expressed their ideas peacefully. A violent reaction to a peaceful expression is not appropriate. A violent reaction to a peaceful protest, about a violent reaction to a peaceful expression, is absolutely ridiculous.
Islam is an idea. It is a theology. It is been used to develop a political system. Islam is not an ethnicity, race or nationality. Islam is a choice. Islam is just a religion.
Thanks guys….
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=4f4edb14-3e07-4309-b603-d186cca06977)
Infidel753
May 28, 2010 at 9:32 am
Excellent post, covering all the bases on this.
It’s a critically important distinction to make, since Islamists and apologists for Islam are very determined to blur these distinctions and paint anyone who criticizes Islam as racist.
The point about ideology is especially apt since it’s the ideological side of a religion — its commandments and taboos about how society should be and how everyone should live — which are far more objectionable than its “spiritual” beliefs which are just random superstitions.
If someone who opposes Islam can be called a racist, one could just as well call anyone who opposes Communism or conservatism a racist.
A religion may be shared by a large group of people of a certain race, yet this does not make it an inherent quality of that race.
Exactly. It is not an inherent quality of any individual, but a set of beliefs which can be outgrown. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and millions of other people were born into Muslim societies and raised Muslim, but they later left it behind and are now no more Muslim than I am.
My hope for the countries that are now Muslim is not that those peoples or cultures be destroyed, but that they similarly cast off this ghastly religio-ideology and join us in the modern world, as the Germans and Japanese cast off fascism, the Russians cast off Communism, and so on.
Religion is not culture. Religion exists within a culture. Insulting a religion is not the same as insulting a culture.
Another important distinction. The Iranian, Egyptian, Turkish, etc. cultures existed before they became Islamic, and will continue to exist after Islam is gone.
Randal Graves
May 28, 2010 at 11:09 am
I’m offended when people are offended.
Holte Ender
May 28, 2010 at 12:04 pm
It could be argued that Arab scientists were the greatest on the planet before Islam, although they continued to innovate for a while after, but in the last 500+ years and since the Islamic State became a goal of the clerics their cultures have stagnated even gone backwards.
Mother Hen
May 28, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I’ve always agreed with MM and Infidel in respect to religious ideology being a choice, distinct from a person’s ethnicity, nationality, and race.
What about the Jews? Obviously there are converted Jews who could be from any ethnic background, but I’m not talking about them. I’ve asked Semitic Jews I know to explain if they associate their Jewishness with religion, ethnicity, culture, or race, and they claim ALL of these is correct. (Though I bet genetic testing of all but the Ashkenazi Jews would show they are little different from their Palestinian Islamic neighbors)
I postulate that anti-Semitism is also racism. So if one criticizes Jewish religion, then a charge of racism may very well be leveled at you. Of course Jews are usually the victims, and don’t have inquisitions, Crusades, Jihads and suicide bombers. (Israeli terrorists are of a more Nationalist bent.)
So make fun of a Hindu because he won’t eat steak, and nothing happens. Draw Mohammad, and you might find a bomb in your mailbox. Rant about Jews, and you get labeled a racist. Christians, being the majority in this country, are fair game. Not to mention the fact that the talibangelicals are usually redneck idiots who are fun to lampoon in general; when you add fundie fervor to the mix, the urge is too strong to ignore.
Infidel753
May 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Hi MH — The issue with criticism of Jews is, I think, a terminological one. The word “Jew” can mean two very different things — an adherent of the Jewish religion, or a member of the Jewish ethnic group. The two are not co-extensive — my understanding is that many of the Jews [ethnic] in Israel are atheists, for example, Certainly many Jews [ethnic] in the West are. (I’m using “ethnic in a cultural sense, obviously, since ethnic Jews are a pretty genetically diverse group — just as members of most ethnic groups probably are, in reality.)
By contrast, the words “Muslim” and “Christian” clearly only refer to an adherent of a particular religion, not to a member of a particular ethnic group.
The fact that “Jew” means two different things means that criticism of Judaism has to be phrased much more carefully to avoid sounding like ethnic prejudice. I find the Jewish religion only marginally less noxious than Islam or Christianity, but I have nothing against Jews as an ethnic group, any more than I do against Iranians or Egyptians, or against Irish or Americans. It’s just that, in the Jewish case, the terminology creates a greater risk of misunderstanding.
osori
May 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm
The issue I have with the criticism of Islam vs criticism of Christianity/Judaism is the occasional “Bomb them back to the Stone Age” comment which follows a post condemning Islam. Comments against Christians are generally directed towards the specific perpetrator or group and rarely suggest violence unless it’s towards an individual who committed a heinous act.
It’s also my observation that criticism of Islam brings comments often directed at (most often) Middle Eastern society as a whole while similar criticism of Christianity typically is not directed towards Western society as a whole but instead specific practices or beliefs.
Mother Hen
May 28, 2010 at 6:17 pm
“Western” societies like Europe, has more secular/ non believer people in it than the USA. In Europe and America the religion and state laws are separate. Here we do have a representation of most all religions, but the vast majority are Christians protestants.
Our laws make it plain that we are not supposed to favor one over the other, and so if people have a problem with or joke about Christianity, they can easily do so without making it seem as though they are attacking the US as a whole. Attacks on atheists are often intensely personal toward that specific atheist, I have noticed.
The Islamic countries have the religious laws AS the laws of the land. Just criticisms of their primeval mentality towards women and children and jokes about their prophet garner death threats. Making a point to mention that it is the religion, not “Muslims” in general can help, but when the religious laws are inextricably woven into the fabric of the culture in some of those countries, most everyone gets painted with the same brush.
osori
May 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Mother Hen,
I can’t argue with your points. You reinforce why religion and government need to remain separate.
And it’s hard for me to fathom why a supposedly religious person would ridicule atheists. It would only increase an atheists resolve, I would think. Better to respect a persons right to believe whatever they want. At least this way one isn’t lumped in with all the fundamentalist Christian whackos.
Gwendolyn H. Barry
May 28, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Very true Oso. I wrote about terrorism in the late ’70′s and I have generally thought of Islam in an unfavorable way… until I further educated myself to the history, the long culture and it’s contributions to so much of our western civilization. Medically they showed us how… they published before Europeans. So much the near and middle eastern cultures contributed… but I nearly always think pre-Islam or I simply remove thought of Islam as contributor. And nearly always I structure it around a more ancient way of life among this middle and near eastern cultures. It’s misogynist culture and cruelty to cultures surrounding it… well, it upsets me. It’s become like catholicism to me… a lesson in patience.
Gwendolyn H. Barry
May 28, 2010 at 7:49 pm
You know, not fer nuthin’ and somebody is probably gonna give me grief here again…
but gee…
this “my one gods’ better than your one god” bullshit has only one historical resolution:
WAR. Just saying….