Abdul Rahman, el Q'oran i la conversió

Ja es pot llegir alguns commentaris del punt de vista musulmà sobre la conversió i el seu procès. Com es pot llegir, al-Jack li falta mòlta caritat ademés pretén que Abdul no es hagués convertit si els imams i fàmilia li haurien instruit en el Q'oran.

Regretable perque ell havia perdut una occasió que hagués pogut arguïr sobre la raonabilitat del Q'oran en lloc d'asserir que es un llibre sagrat del qual negar-le aquesta qualitat mereix la mort. Doncs es dificil de prendre amb seriositat o quansevulla consideració un llibre dit sagrat que justifiqui que s'executi un home innocu que havia convertit al cristainisme. Pitjor encara quan els apologistes musulmans recorren a la violència exposa un defecte greu del Islam: no posseix cap tradició
intel lectual de la qual els pougin arguïr sobre la seva raonabilitat. El Q'oran es tan directe i el seu missatge tan òbvi que rejectar-lo es prova de mala fe i de mal dol.

Tanmateix no se'ls hi occoren mai que el misstage islamic ofen el seny i viola el dret natural. Doncs, es comprehensible que quan Mohammed predicava l'islam la gent el rejectaven, li burlaven o atentaven a matar-lo. Els musulmans encara no han captat que la gent d'avui reaccionen de la mateixa manera.

Per a mi, càtolic creient, la reacció exaltada dels imam afganis i dels musualmans en altre països resforça el sentiment que els saven que el Jesus es el Fill de Déu i ni el Q'oran es un llibre sagrat; ni Mohammed era un profèt de Déu. La curioistat que el procès d'Abdul despartà entre molts afganis n'es una prova d'aquesta realitizació sobre la possible falsitat d'Islam.

L'occident desde les manifestations violentes sobre les caricatures de Mohammed i ara amb l'exili de Abdul, es pregunta- com el Mossèn Samir Kahil Samir- si l'islam es compatible amb les drets humans i el dret de consciència que permet un individu convertir a una altra religió Sinó si s'hauria de reinterpretar el Q'oran per que es purgui els elements violents. No mossèn no es tracta de reinterpetar el Q'oran- es gairebé impossible com sostenen els propris musulmans sinó a refutar in toto el Q'oran per manca de raonabilitat i contrari al dret natural.

Com escrigui fa poc La doctrina peculiar de revocació camina a unes incoherències morals com l'exemple dels 10 manaments.
Finalment si hi ha una cosa sobre el Q'oran que es sorpren es perque desde fa 1400 anys els estudiosos no han escrutinitzat el Q'oran amb les mateix eines que han subjugades a la Bíblia. Si, hi ha el llibre del pseudonimós Christopher Luxemburg però degut a la por, encara no se ha traduït el llibre en altres llengües. No es una pena; es una vergonya que s'ha de rectificar

The Koran, natural law and the 10 commandments

I passed by Robert Spencer's blog some days ago and there was a link that sent me to this interesting fatwa
As I was reading I was struck by this passage

Those who claim that there is truth in what the Jews say, or in what the Christians say - whether he is one of them or not - is denying the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad's sunna and the consensus of the Muslim nation…

And the first question that popped into my head was did Islam revoke the Ten commandments? For a Moslem, the answer is yes.

That's a very serious problem. The Moslems are immediately faced with logical nonsense with the first commandment. The Jews, like Catholics, belive in the oneness of God- the Trinity doesn't contravene that oneness and the Incarnation has rescinded in part the graven images prohibition. In any case, the Moslems really need to explain how can God revoke a commandment that he gave to the Jews and Christians but reestablishes a pratically verbatim order to the Moslems?

If the Jews and Christians are correct with the first commandment; how can Moslem serenely claim that they have nothing to learn from the Jews and Christians? Indeed, the Moslem position exposes equally problematic conondrums as we examine the other commandements.

For example, The second commandment admonishes not to take the Lord's name in vain; yet Moslem have no compunction in abusing blasphemy legislation to get even with Christians and non-Moslems over some banal neighbourhood troubles. The fifth commandment prohibits murder; and yet, Moslem society is pretty much a catalogue of gratuitious death and unjustified war. I'm not referring to the contemporary case of Abdul Rahman nor the swift conquest of North Africa in the 600s, I'm thinking of incidents like this one. Reading through both the Koran and subsequent contemporary accounts, it's obvious that Mohammed was a warmonger who had a pathological love of killing and conquest.

Taquiyaa, the principle of deception, is morally problematic. How can the Moslem explain to non-Moslems that fifth commandment prohibiting false testimony was so corrupted by the Jews and Christians that God revoked it and permitted Moslems to lie to everyone? Mohammed is the point of reference. The conduct in his later life absolutely refutes that he was God's prophet.

The sixth prohibits robbery and part of tenth commandment, avarice-coveting your neigbour's property etc. Yet, Moslems have no difficulty in taking what doesn't belong to them. Oftimes, avaraice is often accompained by false witness- how many times have we read about how a non-Moslem was charged with blasphemy to hide a dispute involving money and property?

The second half of the tenth commandments also prohibits coveting another man's wife. Yet, Mohammed had a 'vision' and forced his son to hand over his wife- that's Mohammed's own daugther-in-law. In another sura, God supposedly gave Mohammed the 'privilege' of having all the wives, concubines, mistresses and female groupies he wanted. In modern times, we have the evil practice of Christian and non-Moslem women kidnapped and forced to convert while the regime actively abets the practice. Further, in Shi'ism there exists the temporary marriage contract. Again, Moslems face an impossible effort to illustrate how the Jews and Christians so thoroughly corrupted that commandment, that God restored fornication, adultery and lust in interpersonal relations.

The commandments are a net, cut off a knot, the rest of the net unravals. The net is useless because it no catches fish (the virtues) while draining away the water (the vices) More fundamentally, it's offensive to believers that God would revoke the 10 commandments- the natural law written in all of men's hearts- and replace it with depravity.

The Moslem position that the Koran implicitly revoked the 10 commandments reminds me of the scene in 1984 where one of the characters proudly notes that the Newspeak dictionary is the only one with which each edition includes less words.

And so it's the same with Islam, that God's revelation fades with each sura, hadith and fatwa.

Moreoever, it's unsurprising that when Mohammed 'preached', people either ignored him, chased him out of town or mocked him. They understood, albeit incohately, that Mohammed's message defied common sense and outraged natural law.

Islam's greatest weakness is that its apologetics are so shallow that without recourse to the sword, the gun and the bomb, it has no foundations with which to persuade non-Moslems of Islam's reasonability. Read the statement by Said Mirhossain Nasri. The imam isn't just affronted but also fearful because he has no resources within the Koran nor the hadiths and no practice of engaging non-Moslems. How does he bring forward the reasonability of executing an ex-Moslem convert? Or kidnapping non-Moslem women and forceably converting them? Or coveting what doesn't belong to them? Or witnessing falsely when non-Moslems are involved?

He can't because the Koran provides no cogent foundations for Islam's reasonableness.