As Muslims celebrate Eid Al-Fitr or Eid’l Fitr (August 30, 2011), it’s as good a time as any to consider the so-called ‘Muslim threat.’ So many have been brainwashed into believing that the only viable ‘solution’ to terrorism and Muslim extremism is to eradicate the entire Middle East.
MUSLIMS AREN’T INHERENTLY VIOLENT
Do these people really feel Islam to be a threat to all infidels (non-Muslims), so much so that they would kill Robin Padilla on sight, if only they could get away with it? Or feel justified in massacring those ‘dibidi’ sellers in Quiapo and Cubao? And what of Muhammad “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong” Ali? And cancer-stricken basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Are these people part of the ‘threat’?
BAD PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY
Because of such brainwashing, otherwise peaceful folk are led to believe that it’s a matter of “us or them,” that the end (of abolishing terrorism) justifies the means (killing of innocent babies).
It requires a poor understanding of psychology and sociology to believe that, figuratively, Islam is a robe people put on that makes them violent and angry towards nonbelievers, to the extent of them dedicating their lives to extermination of the rest of the world.
RELIGIONS DO NOT DETERMINE ACTION
It seems that it is the Muslim tradition, supposedly of killing infidels in Allah’s name and demeaning women, that is passed down from generation to generation. And so human action is reduced to a mindless adherence to ‘culture’ or ‘religion.’
By this logic, there would be no difference among Muslims in the 8th century and those of today. There would be no difference between Christianity when it was an underground minority in the Roman Empire, and Christianity in the present world. What accounts for such a difference? What accounts for any social change at all? To answer that, we have to discard the simplistic notion of ‘religion as determinant.’
ACTIONS DETERMINE RELIGION
What actually happens in society is that people have their unique perspectives, and do their unique actions, that only later can be generalized under the concept of, say, ‘Islam.’ The diversity even within a group of Muslims is reflected in the fact that Muslims today are a different breed from those of earlier centuries. Although they seek guidance from the same book, the Koran, each could not help but interpret scripture in their unique, ‘mutated’ way.
We can speculate how much of this change in outlook comes from interaction with a ‘more enlightened’ West, and how much is a ‘natural’ growth in understanding that comes with time. But it is more important to realize that religions, being mere generalizations of unique actions, are not static.
RELIGIONS ARE DYNAMIC, IN BEING MERE GENERALIZATIONS OF UNIQUE ACTIONS
With this framework, we are able to understand the phenomenon of divergence from ‘the book,’ even as such divergent or wayward actions are still labeled under the umbrella concept of a particular religion.
We read the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in which women are treated as second-class citizens, yet we write this off as a difference in cultures, without even considering that today’s relatively equal-opportunity society is actually not in keeping with the Bible’s God’s teachings. Not only is the culture different, but the religion too, even as we call it by the same thing many centuries later.
Yet many would oppose Islam’s degradation of women as something that will never change, what with the supposed inherent rigidity of the teachings of Islam. But from our discussion above, we see the nonsense of explaining by inherence these present actions that could not help but be totally unique from those in the past.
ECONOMICS PARALLEL: THE COST THEORY OF VALUE