What's Wrong with Islam?

It's always a good idea to question your own religion. I was pondering the question of how I can be so sure that Christianity has it right. In fact, how can we be certain that Islam isn't the one pure worship of the one true God as it claims to be.

First, let's set aside the notion that Islam can't be the true Faith because it breeds terrorists. That argument can't hold water simply because there's no religion (including that most profound leap of faith, atheism) that gives rise to flawless people. No, clearly we can't judge a religion by what its claimants do, but we certainly must judge it by what it teaches they ought to do.

Now, please don't quote Jesus Christ's advice to the Disciples in Matthew 7:20: "By their fruits, you shall know them." I accept the truth of that statement, but in that context Jesus was not speaking of determining which religion is the true one, but which of His followers were the real ones. Christ wasn't questioning whether Christianity is true; He was telling His disciples how to ferret out those who falsely claim to be Christian. But again, my point is that a religion isn't true because those who claim to follow it are perfect, but because it teaches that they ought to be perfect. Behavior is important, but only so far as it reveals the true Christian, not because Christianity depends on the good behavior of those who call themselves Christians.

For each terrorist suicide bomber I might cite, a Muslim could point to a Roman Catholic pedophile in the priesthood. So (even though I might tend to agree with him about the flaws of Roman Catholicism) I can't convince him that Christianity is true because those who call themselves Christians are blameless or that Islam is false because those who claim to be Muslims are terrorists. The Truth is even simpler than this dichotymous view of good and evil. The simple Truth is just what Christianity teaches: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

When Jesus told the Pharisees (who presented Him the dilemma of how to deal with a woman caught in adultery), "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," He wasn't saying, "Aw, c'mon guys! Adultery's not all that bad." (Of all people, Jesus knew just how serious adultery is, since on the cross He received the punishment for that sin, too.) Jesus wasn't dismissing adultery as insignificant; He was merely pointing out the logistical problem of perfectly executing God's perfect justice. The problem with casting the first stone is that there won't be anyone left to cast the last stone. Again, the Truth is: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

So the truth of a religion isn't based on what its followers do (since all adherents of all religions do abominable things and one could even argue the most heinous things are often done in the name of religion). The truth of a religion can only be judged by what it teaches that they should do.

And therein lies the error of Islam. The Quran teaches that allegience to Allah is the highest virtue - all other virtues are of less importance than this one central virtue. By making loyalty (not truth, nor honesty, nor kindness, but "loyalty") the highest of virtues, Islam also makes disloyalty the worst of sins. Thus, a Muslim may kill innocent people, but so long as he does it as a demonstration of his "loyalty" to Allah, he has acted honorably - even laudably, earning him a just reward in paradise. However, if a Muslim who has lived a morally blameless life dares to criticize a fellow Muslim (even the one who has killed innocent people in the name of Allah), he has been disloyal to Islam and his eternal reward is in doubt. Thus, Islam lends itself to moral inversion: lauding horrific criminals as holy men while at the same time restraining those who might otherwise oppose such wantonly criminal behavior.

The dirty little secret (which the main stream media struggles mightily to keep hidden) is: Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are the true Muslims, and the so-called moderates are the ones who've moved to the fringes of Islamic thought, being infected as they are with evil Western ideas. So the MSM searches high and low for a "moderate Muslim" spokesman to speak out against Islamic terrorism, but when the camera comes on, the spokesman's condemnation invariably falls short of a clear denunciation, and it moves quickly to a litany of the injustices suffered by Muslims. Why? Why are Muslims so slow to condemn such behavior among Muslims? Are they afraid if physical violence for speaking out?

Maybe, but (and I think more importantly) they're reluctant to speak up against fellow Muslims, not out of fear of retribution from terrorists, but out of devotion to terrorists. To speak ill of a fellow Muslim, even Osama bin Laden (or rather especially of a true believer like Osama bin Laden), is shameful. And such disloyalty to the Muslim brethren is, to the Muslim mind, far worse than any terrorist acts these criminals commit. The spectrum of Muslim outrage over Muslim terrorism stretches only from loud public support (surely you remember the dancing in the streets of Ramalla when the Twin Towers came down) to quiet private embarrassment.

Islam's promotion of loyalty as the highest of virtues is the central error of the Muslim faith. The belief that allegiance is all that matters is the hallmark of all tyrants. Allah is a tyrannical god.