I’m Ajitarok and I do not go about maliciously attacking other people’s religions. I do not insult; and I try not to offend, because I want to be a friend to all peoples. I only try to reason with those who confront me.
Zey Tells Me to Not Judge Islam by its Rules
My friend Zey the Turk, in the comments of my posts, is trying to defend murdering people for not being Muslim.
And when I am, of course, appalled and scandalised by this wickedness he proposes, he tells me that I should not „judge Islam by its rules but by rather [sic] what it is.“
Well, isn’t this convenient for him! That I should form my opinion of this religion based on some abstraction, some essence he claims it possesses: „what it is“. That we should only consider the words, not the deeds. Is this the only way he can defend Islam: to ignore what it brings about in the world?
But God has warned us about false prophets, and He has shewn us how to recognise them. „Ye shall know them by their fruits“, Christ has told us (Matthew 7:15-23).
So, in order to try to justify Islam, Zey tells me to ignore Islam’s fruits, because its fruits reveal what it really is. If Islam were good, it would bring good things into the world. „A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit“. But you will remember, what Zey is so desperately trying to defend is the Islamic doctrine of murdering people who do not believe in Islam—a very obviously evil fruit, which can only be born of a corrupt tree!
Zey’s Bewildering Defense of Sharia
So my friend Zey the Turk, in the comments of my posts, is trying to defend murdering people for not being Muslim. And he tells me—in the same sentence!—that „Sharia can indeed establish a utopian society“, but that „its difficult in modetn society bc ppl wont want it [sic]“.
Well, I have to question his notion of a ,utopian society‘, because what he is describing—a social order imposed upon people who largely oppose it—is far from ,utopian‘ in any accepted sense!
It is easy for Zey as a (nominally) Muslim male, to commend Sharia, because Sharia benefits him even as it harms others. Zey does not have to care about the status of women and non-Muslims under Sharia, where a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s, and a non-Muslim may not testify at all. At best, we are made second-class citizens in our own homeland; we are repressed, marginalised, and taxed dry for our faith while the Muslim invaders make themselves rich off of our labour. At worst, we are killed for our faith, as Zey says, and according to the Quran.
And Zey naïvely says that Sharia is difficult to impose „in modetn society“. Does he really think that it was ever easily accepted? Such an order would be met with the same sort of pushback in any time period, because Christians, Jews, and others will not accept this draconian intrusion on our faith and our lives! We cannot reasonably be expected to simply bow down to this order. „You only have the option to kill us.“ And indeed, here Zey is, defending killing us! Hence through the history of Islamic conquest, many Christians and others have been martyred by the Muslim invaders for opposing these unjust laws. Sharia is marred with innocent blood.
Personally I think that a good government should serve the people by interpreting and executing their will; it should not repress and replace their will. And religious law should not intrude upon people who do not follow that religion.