James Arlandson, an educator specializing in world religions, writes today in The American Thinker about Islam and trying to reconcile the violence we all see with the concept of Islam as a religion of peace.
He can’t.
It seems the terrorists and assassins are terrorized by this logic:
(4) If A, then B. If Muhammad was a perfect prophet, he would never order the assassination of poets, poetesses, singing-girls, and an innocent Jewish bystander.
(5) Not-B. But Muhammad did order their assassinations.
(6) Therefore, Not-A. Muhammad was not a perfect prophet.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a statement by the Islamic Society of Southern Texas. They condemned the violence ongoing in the Middle East as an affront to Islam. I asked some of my compatriots in Homespun Bloggers to link to it, and asked for follow-up questions to ask these gentlemen. The folowing blogs answered the call:
Wandering Mind
MuD&PHuD
Mamamontezz’s Mental Rumpus Room
Emigre With Digital Cluebat
The Commons at Paulie World
Solomonia
Serenade
Daisy Cutter
Mr. Minority
Considerettes
I’ve been disappointed with the response. Very few people have offered questions, and I wonder if there is even a reason for continuing to generate a dialogue. Perhaps we have all really concluded, with the dearth of statements such as the one here in Corpus Christi, that Muslims aren’t really sincere in their exhortations that Islam is a religion of peace. I have read the Quran (years ago) and many of the Hadiths. I draw the same conclusion as Dr. Arlandson. That doesn’t please me.
I hate to think it is so. I will continue if Jim wants to. I don’t know if my heart is really in it, now.
The only problem is that the major premise above is not unarguably true. You define perfect prophet on YOUR terms, not on Islamic terms. Therefore the entire structure collapses under its own weight.
Comment by ThePrecinctChair — October 12, 2004 @ 9:07 pm
I understand how you feel Bunker….I came to the same conclusion some time ago.
Comment by RedFalcon — October 13, 2004 @ 10:25 am