A defence for "modern" Muslims

9 January 2015; a date that will live in infamy. Muslim terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo and callously killed 12 good people because they published some cartoons which inglorious cowards won't show.

The line has been drawn. Je suis Charlie. Or, non je suis Charlie? Al Jazeera is definitive: je suis and non.

* Khalid Albaih has made his own cartoon, in defense of Muslims who he portrays as victims:

They are constantly asked to apologise for crimes they neither committed, nor supported. They, too, are victims of the violence of extremists. Still, they are asked to apologise and somehow atone for these crimes that were committed in the name of their religion. Then they must face the wrath of extremists who attack them for refusing to approve of the methods they view as the only way to defend Islam.
Anna Maria Tremonti has warmed to his perspective. Unlike Anna Maria, I don't wear rose-tinted glasses. The so-called "modern" Muslims are not just victims.

The problem with "modern" Muslims is that they still regard the Quran to be their Holy Book. Like the other monotheists, they divide people into an "in group" and the rest of us. And here's what the Quran instructs Muslims to do about the rest of us:

along with a whole lot of other stuff that makes us non-Muslims feel ill at ease. Of course the Holy Bible contains similar instructions but murderous Christian extremists are not common whereas murderous Muslim extremists are a dime a dozen nowadays.

And don't tell me that such Holy Words were never ment to be taken literally. In the Muslim educational tradition, literal thinking is the rule, not the exception. Recital of the Quran is the badge of scholarship, for Mohamed Morsi and for Muslims in Canada. In nations where Muslim theocracy holds sway, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, injunctions to mutilate and kill unbelievers are applied very literally. Thirty thousand Muslim (extremists?) cried out in unison, death to the apostate.

There was a time when those who disagreed with standard doctrine would be swiftly killed by run-of-the-mill Christians. Yet disagree they did. And they were killed. The Roll of Honour is too long to write. Upon being sentenced to death by fire, Giordano Bruno replied: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it."

Christianity became almost civilized, eventually, after hundreds of years of bloodshed and torture. Heck, by the end of the 20th Century the Catholic Church had sort of apologized to Galileo.

Every man and woman who loves free thought should honour Bruno. The Church never will. Bruno will always stick in their throat.

Christians still have not excoriated evil and stupid passages from their Holy Books. That sticks in my throat.

So long as the Holy Books say to kill the infidel, the "modern" Muslim/Christian cannot separate himself from tacit support for murdering extremists. So long as such putrifaction persists there will always be a path for the extremist to claim the high ground. Christianity could relapse. It is not enough to merely pretend such text does not exist, to overlook it, to give it some "benign" interpretation --- as though such words could ever be innocent. So long as the words stand, they say what they mean and what they mean is to provide comfort and support to killer extremists and theocratic thugs who enslave entire nations.

Mr(s) "modern" Muslim/Christian, who is more devout:

  1. The Muslim/Christian who believes some selection from the Holy Books
  2. Or the Muslim/Christian who buys into the whole shebang...

Monotheism is not an innocent sport.