Don't tolerate the intolerable! - IV

HOLY BOOKS

     Below is another chapter of a sequence of articles that I wrote about a decade ago.

     All “holy books” are interesting books of symbolical stories conceived and written by human hands; some also have some fragments of factual History, like the Torah and the Bible attested by thousands of archeological findings in old and new Israel. But they are not History and Science books. Islam takes the Quran as the only book that contains all knowledge. What happens when someone mixes everything and takes a parable, a fantasy, a “human revelation”, a subjective interpretation or an opinion for an historical truth? The World, Life, the Universe become a succession of illusions, knowledge becomes an untouchable mirage and dogmas take the place of all natural inner faith. But those who submit and believe in all this and in nothing else believe this is the only truth and become eternal prisoners of their beliefs.

     Some of those who uttered and / or wrote those texts were real and even exceptional human beings, because they were truly good in their souls and in their lives. The way they lived, their principles, ideas and ideals demonstrated that (the Jewish prophets, Jesus (also a Jew from Israel), Buddha, Lao Tse, and many others). But what may we say about those who were dishonest, cruel, autocratic, slavers, killers and demanded their followers to be and do the same? Should anyone take their words as representative of god’s being and will and follow their teachings and commands? That would be absurd and evil. And yet that’s precisely what happened and still happens in Islam.

     Some “holy books” also prescribe ways of thinking and living using imaginary stories or episodes of the life of a particular person (a prophet, a saint, a wiseman or wisewoman…). Many of those stories are really instructive, make us reflect upon our own choices and actions; sometimes, even when the characters act wrongly, the purpose is sublime or just point the best way to act in some practical situations. But the entire subjacent moral in these stories is of a religious and ethical kind. The values and actions defended are considered good because someone assumed that was god’s will and decision. And many of those values and actions are actually good by universal ethical standards of any culture and time. But what can we say when those examples and teachings impose to people barbaric values, actions and the total disrespect for humankind?

     By any dignifying human standards of the present, or even of the past of many civilizations, Muhammad would be considered a very despicable individual. I don’t need to enunciate here in detail his destructive actions and teachings; anyone can read several biographies by very different authors. And the Quran, with its 114 Surah, and the Hadith (teachings and sayings of the prophet), are available in many languages, printed and online. You just have to read them (choose the most accurate and impartial not the apologetic) to draw your own conclusions. Only Islamic authors will show a positive image of Muhammad, his actions and his teachings, justifying his crimes as legitimate and as being the manifestation of god’s will. How can anyone perfectly reasonable defend such a character and follow his teachings was always a mystery to me. I began to read a lot about religions when I was around 12-year-old and already then it was evident to me how “un-divine” and destructive Islam was in its essence. And my attitude wasn’t unilateral because I also had and have many objections to other religions. Later, I read the Quran and several biographies of Muhammad, by several authors and in different languages. I was still trying to understand how it was possible that any reasonable human being would follow such a “religion”.

     It took me some time to understand that after all Islam wasn’t even a religion, was a political ideology that uses god and religion to achieve its purposes: control, manipulate, conquer and dominate the world with its perverse autocratic religious form of governing peoples and nations. In the present I see the addicted followers of Islam as some kind of brainwashed prisoners that accept totally their condition of mental prisoners (a kind of “self mental autocracy”) and want to impose that same way of living to the rest of the world. That’s their model of perfection and happiness!

     It is disturbing to verify that Islamic values really correspond to what its holy book prescribes (in all the 30 existing versions written along 100 years starting at least 150 years after the death of the “prophet”) and that no reform was made to make it fairer and human. Or at least the religious leaders should declare that a holy book can’t be taken literally. But why should Islam be reformed if it is so convenient for rulers just like it is? While there’s thirst of autocratic power and there’s still some oil in the Islamic countries most probably no reform will be done. Other reason to this petrified state of Islam teachings and morality has to do with the ignorance of Quran itself. The direct knowledge of Quran, through reading, is even worse than the knowledge of the Bible in the Middle Ages in Europe. The great majority of Islamic followers are illiterate; they can’t even read the Quran, at least in Arabic, they just know Islam by hearsay and clerics preachments. They believe and follow what they hear, no matter how absurd and barbaric it is. So, the holy book of Islam is like a mirage: it exists but it isn’t really known.

     Would you blindly follow any fiction book whose author tells you that its content is a direct revelation of the “words of god” even without reading it?

     The radical leaders and their uncritical and loyal servants and followers use everything to achieve their purpose, mainly terror and killing as prescribed in their holy book. And to complete this circle of manipulation, civil laws reproduce the religious dogmas and stay unchangeable, the sharia law. Religious cruel laws shape and control by force the lives of believers and unbelievers under an Islamic regime. And this mad model is presented to the world as the only perfect society. As if terror did ever lead to anything good, to any real and lasting “victory” or a sane and peaceful society. But nothing of that is surprising because that was precisely the way Islam was born: jihad, the holy war against the infidel, was the first main imposition of the prophet. He practiced it himself killing those who wouldn’t submit, what makes the prophet just a warlord and his ideology a cult of war and death.

     Some analysts and historians call this strategy the “political Islam”. Well, anyone who really knows a little bit of Islam History knows that Islam was a political ideology from the beginning, very similar to any other dictatorial ideology, with or without the personal cult of a leader (Nazism / Hitler, Bolshevism / Leninism / Stalinism, Maoism / Mao Tse Tung, Fascism / Mussolini, “North Koreanism” / Kim Jong Un, “Chavism” / Hugo Chávez, “Madurism” / Nicolás Maduro, Castrism” / Fidel Castro, Putinism / Vladimir Putin…). It is not irrelevant that Hitler admired Islam so much and considered Christianity the religion of the “weak”, because Islam knew how to make war and kill, and Christianism preferred peace and coexistence, at least in his essence and origin… the Inquisition and the systematic pogroms against Jews proved the opposite. Islam and the Russian totalitarianism are also in the root of “Palestinianism”, a pernicious farce formally and publicly created in 1964 by the Russians and Yasser Arafat (PLO), a virus-idea that keeps killing until the present. Before Arafat, the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, became a friend and ally of Hitler and asked him to help to install some kind of extermination camps of Jews in Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jews, and all over the Middle East. Considering the chronology, one may even assume that Amin al-Husayni, the first founder of “Palestinianism” point the way to Hitler in what concerns the Final Solution. Those camps weren’t built probably because Hitler was too busy exterminating the Jews who were living in Europe.

Monsters by Herbert Pagani, 1964.

MEMRI TV Compilation Of Imams In The West Espousing Anti-Christian Hate & Islamic-Inspired Supremacy

Australian Imams And Islamic Scholars Glorify Jihad Against Jews, Infidels, 'Enemies Of Allah'

Don’t tolerate the intolerable! - II

HUMAN DIVERSITY IS NATURAL

     Not all have the same mental and psychological predisposition to believe and feel the metaphysical dimensions of reality and that’s also understandable and natural. Not all were born and raised in an environment that propitiates or shapes a certain metaphysical belief from a young age… though true belief can’t be shaped or forced; is an interior and free act of conscience. Our time presents us striking contradictions, from the complete freedom to believe or disbelieve to the imposition of a single belief. Again, in the present, Islam is the only religion that imposes a single belief and extreme punishment for dissidents.

     We are all different and that is a great human richness. I was born in a Christian country but was never forced to follow any religion. Here, many different religions coexist peacefully. I don’t have a religion but I have a deep spirituality and a huge sense of the Transcendent. And I have values that may be considered Christian, but not because anyone imposed them to me but because they are coincident with my human values.

     When I was around 12-year-old, I remember telling my mother (a Christian Catholic) that we (she and I) were much more alike than she might thought, only the fundaments of our values were different: she thought, felt and acted as she did in great part because her parents, her teachers, priests had told her those were good values. I thought those values were good because that was obvious to me. Observing the world around, experiencing life, learning about History, Science, Religions… Using my individual conscience and interacting with empathy with people had led me to that “obvious” and natural conclusion. Later, my mother understood and completely agreed with my position. In this article, I don’t want to go further in any analysis and reflection about Christian values, but I still have no doubt that they are good, peaceful and human. What some followers of Christianity did in the past or do in the present may not correspond to those values, but the values remain intact and are defended and practiced by the large majority.

     My spirituality is beyond religions, it is an important part of my inner state of conscience and of my existence and role in the world. I believe this free spirituality can bring anyone closer to the Great Mystery, to each other, to Nature, to the Universe than any religion. Most of the times, religion is an obstacle to spirituality, a thick wall of dogmas and ignorance. Islam surely is a thick dark wall between humans and their own souls. The spirit can’t survive in an environment of radical dogmas, intolerance and punishment.

     Humans are body and soul. We may call the immaterial part spirit, conscience, mind, awareness… even brain or intelligence. Though the brain is quite physical, we only know and use consciously about 75% of it; and intelligence is a complex structure of many different functions and abilities that reflect all the interactions among all brain areas and data accumulated. Moral judgment depends from those interactions as logical thought does. What is amazing about moral judgment (the one that distinguishes a good action from a bad one) is that implicates the intervention of the largest number of brain areas (and neuroscience already proved that) than any other kind of thought, judgment or mental activity. In other simple words: being good is a sign of a well balanced intelligence! The most free and critical brain is able of more fair judgments!

     The spirit forms a unity with matter, moves matter through life, towards life ― mens agitat molem ―, towards wisdom, towards a fulfillment and a purpose of inner and outer truthfulness (“the possible perfection”) in our mental and emotional experiences and in our actions. The guidance and the path of the spirit never lead to death, oppression and suffering; this means we don’t seek death, oppression and suffering and we don’t cause it to others. It is absurd that a religion may prescribe evil actions in name of god and tames the spirit to prevent it from reaching freedom and goodness by its own means. Religions that don’t allow the spirit to breathe and grow freely don’t even understand what to be human means, and subvert from the beginning essential notions of “good” and “bad”, that are universal values not moral restrict dogmas.

     Each spirit has its own path to fulfillment; it’s an apparently solitary journey made in union with all creations (Nature, people, human creations, the Unknown). Guidance comes mainly from within and from the example of the good and wise. Spirituality does not demand or need religions and intermediaries, like prophets, clerics, muftis, imams, theologians, ideological leaders… all instruments of theocracy and ideology. Only those who want to rule societies and even the whole world need this. What the soul needs is inner identity, peace, freedom, humbleness and wisdom. This is not a “divine revelation”; these are natural insights accessible to any spirit that isn’t imprisoned by dogmas, prejudices, religions and ideologies.

     Preserving our inner difference is preserving our identity. Our common family is Humanity not any religion and its followers; our common home is Earth, the Universe and the Great Mystery (if you accept there is and there will always be a Mystery). In this sense, the spirit that perceives just a tiny glimpse of the Eternal Unknown experiences wholeness and eternity through this perception, even if it is limited and ephemeral. And the Eternal Unknown is everywhere, from the light of a sunbeam to the conscience of our existence, from the small drop of rain to the existence of a huge Universe that no one will ever know in its totality… The spirit, conscience, true reason are humble; dogmatic belief is always arrogant and an obstacle to objective knowledge and to subjective and individual spiritual inner perceptions.

RELIGIOUS MORAL versus ETHICS

     Particular groups (religious, cultural, social) tend to build their own moral codes. Those who share the precepts in those codes may consider them the best moral principles for them, but no one, no group, has the right to impose those values to others against their will, mainly when those moral principles go against human rights and the universal dignity of each human being. Ethics is universal. Moral is always particular. Only those values that may be applied universally, respecting all, may be acceptable. That is what Ethics stands for. Moral is and will always be the reflection of a particular view, defending and respecting only those who share those same vales.

    In the following paragraphs, the word “moral” is sometimes used with an equivalent meaning of “ethics”, because I’m quoting articles where both words are taken as synonyms, but they are not.

     It is really worrying to realize that among Muslims “moral” is exclusively connected with religion and the belief in god (as some humans conceived it). From their point of view, only Islamic believers can be “good” and “right” because they are the only ones that believe in the true god! If that is so, then why are so many acting against goodness and righteousness in all the violent ways? Here is a fragment of a report about “moral” among Muslims by the Pew Research Center (2013):

God and Morality

     «Muslims widely hold the view that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values. In nearly every country surveyed, at least half of Muslims say an individual’s morality is linked to belief in God. This is true especially in the countries surveyed in Southeast Asia, where more than nine-in-ten Muslims say it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. At least eight-in-ten say the same in most countries surveyed in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region; only in Lebanon does a smaller majority (64%) share this view.»

Sources: - https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/

- Cf. The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, Pew Research Center, 2013, pp. 24-26. - https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

     The History of Islam shows clearly how moral was shaped by the practical needs of Muhammad and his followers: to conquer and tame the population. Believers are always easier to govern than non-believers; they are more submissive, abnegated and, the most of the times, ignorant. Ignorance is the perfect ground to sow irrational beliefs and superstition. From the point of view of Islam, non-Muslim believers are unbelievers, infidels, so they must convert or be eliminated. Jihad has precisely this barbaric aim. Jihad is a fundamental part of Islamic moral code that, fortunately, it isn’t universally accepted as an ethical position or we would live in a permanent state of universal war. There would always be free minds opposing to this universal dictatorship and trying to preserve true ethical values. And ethical values are independent of religions, cultures, races, education, particular beliefs and gender. On the contrary, moral codes are based on that.

     Studies from the last two decades in the field of cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology and bioethics point to a very interesting point: we just need to be human to be moral. Marc D. Hauser in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (2006) affirms that «humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender, education, and religion». This means that we don’t need religion to distinguish right from wrong; we need knowledge, empathy, conscience, freedom and free will. In spite of religions and ideologies, humans were somehow able of finding a reasonable path to ethics. Though many humans keep acting like cruel savages, a basis of positive universal values was achieved just because along with wild instincts of survival we also developed instincts of peaceful coexistence that, after all, are essential to survival.

     Following a similar point of view, Harry Foundalis states the following:

     «What non-muslims consider as moral is the “Universally Moral”. It is the moral code that we human beings inherited from our non-human ancestors; in other words, it is the biological moral code, which was molded into the texts of some religious holy books, especially those of the Judeo-Christian and Hindu religions, in the Buddhist and Confucian traditions, etc.

     In contrast, what Muslims consider moral is what Muhammad did in his life — plain and simple. In fact, the Qur’an itself (i.e., Allah) urges Muslims to do as Muhammad did. Thus, for the non-muslims to understand what is moral in Islam, all they have to do is examine Muhammad’s life (but also the Qur’an), and they’re guaranteed to have all their answers about Islamic morality.»

     Giving a list of examples from the Quran, the author points a few examples of values and behaviours that are consider morally right and mandatory in the Muslim moral code but are unacceptable under the “Universally Moral”:

EQUALITY

     «(…) By “Equality” I mean that every human being has the same human rights with every other human being, irrespective of gender, religion, or anything else. This is not true in the Islamic world. For example, Muslim women and Muslim men are not equal, both in theory and in practice. (cf. Qur’an - Qur’an 4:34)

          And in practice, inequalities exist in many ways: women, but not men, must completely cover their hair and bodies; a man can marry more than one woman but a woman only one man; women must stay confined and pray in one area of the mosque specially designed for them, but only men can pray in the main hall of it; women cannot walk alone out of home, but must be accompanied by a male relative; and many more. As for inequalities in religion, in Islam a Muslim is considered superior to an infidel, who is assumed to be second-class citizen while living in an Islamic society. In any case, “Equality” is not a moral issue in Islam, but it is in the rest of the world.»

CONQUEST

     «(…) By “Conquest” I mean, of course, the act of going at war and conquering the land of another nation. Conquest is considered normal in the Islamic world, and even a virtue and a show of power, as Muhammad was a warlord who conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula. As a result of conquering nearby tribes, Muhammad’s men (the first Muslims) acquired wealth and slaves, and the Qur’an devotes a whole chapter on war booty and slaves (sura 8, Al-Anfal: “Spoils of War, Booty”). But in the rest of the world Conquest is an evil act, an immoral act of depravity, because it savagely violates precisely the principle of Equality among all human beings, discussed above. There can be war among two nations, but the conquest of one by the other is considered an immoral act of the conquering nation.»

      And the author goes on addressing directly to Muslim readers, demonstrating that the violence and killings perpetrated nowadays by Muslims all around the world were prescribed since the beginning by their Prophet and holy book:

     «The fact that your prophet Muhammad was a conqueror means that he was a warlord. As a warlord, he killed people. You understand this, right? You understand, I hope, that he didn’t convert the tribes of Arabia to Islam by offering them bouquets of roses. He was met with resistance, which he subdued by the power of the scimitars of his men, who formed his army. Well, you see, this killing of people, no matter how “noble” the ultimate goal sounds to you, is considered highly immoral in the non-muslim world.

(…)

     If you think that taking other peoples’ lands and making them your own is fine, then, in the eyes of the rest of the world, you are not just immoral, but a villainous barbarian.» (vide http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/WhenceReligion.htm#morality)

      The perception of the dangers and atrocities of Islam is not recent. We can find many writings from the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries. One may say: “But those works were written by westerners that didn’t know or understand Islam, that’s why they are so critical.” Wrong! Those authors knew Arabic, read the Islamic scriptures and knew the History of Islamic bloody conquests. And in spite of all that knowledge, they are able of being quite accurate and impartial. Some authors prefer not even utter an ethical judgment about Islamic principles or actions. They just present excerpts from the Quran or the Hadith. The following two excerpts are from an 18^th book that is focused especially on the morality of the East, mainly Islam.

     The first one make us remember certain ideologies that demand total loyalty and despise the love and links between people of the same family or community. Only those ideologies, that even pretend to be atheist, came much after Islam, but used and are using exactly the same dogmas and precepts (ex-Soviet Union, China or North Korea among others…) and the loyalty demanded is not towards a god or a prophet but towards an ideology and a leader:     

      «O true believers! Take not your fathers or your brethren for friends, if they love infidelity above faith; and whosoever among you shall take them for his friends, they will be unjust doers. Say if your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your relations, and your substance which ye have acquired, and your merchandize, which ye apprehend may not be sold off, and your dwellings wherein ye delight, be more dear unto you than God and his apostle, and the advancement of his religion; wait, until God shall send his commands: for God directs not the ungodly people.» (Chap. IX., Vol. I., p. 242)

    «When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds; and either give them a free dismission afterward, or exact a ransom, until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do, verily if God pleased, he could take vengeance on them without your assistance: but he commands you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other. And as to those who fight in defense of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish: he will guide them, and will dispose their heart aright; and he will lead them into paradise, of which he hath told them. O true believers, if ye assist God, by fighting for his religion, he will assist you against your enemies; and will set your feet fast: but as for the infidels, let them perish; and their works shall God render vain.» (Chap, XLVII, Vol. II, p. 376)

In The morality of the East - extracted from the Koran of Mohammed - digested under alphabetical heads, Printed for W. Nicoll, London, 1766 (pp. 77-79) 

The dictator and Palestine by Ahmed Falah, from Norway, 18 November 2023.

Hateful Stew by Daniel Boris, from USA, 30 October 2023.

The Worst of Humanity by Daniel Boris, from USA, 23 October 2023.