Why Islam Is a Problem
Islam is set of ideas and values based around its founder, Mohammed. It would be better to rename Islam as Mohammedanism, since Islam can not be separated from its founder. There is no Islam without Mohammed, just as there is no Christianity without Jesus. Insulting Mohammed seems to invoke an extreme form of offense, that strengthens the implication, that there is little to no separation between Mohammed and the Qur’an.
Here is a very rough comparison of Jesus and Mohammed.
|Acts of Murder||None||Several People|
|Sexual Immorality||Prude||Had several wives and sex slaves – (married Aisha at 6 years old, Consummated marriage when she was 9, while Mohammed was in his 50s)
Had more wives then prescribed by Islam (Islam claims a man may marry up to 4 wives, Mohammed had 11)
|Apostates||Damnation||Death and Damnation|
|Freedom of Conscience||Damnation (if not accepted)||Death and Damnation, Jizya tax or Conversion (Jizya tax not applicable if polytheist)|
|Greed||Give up Wealth||Headed raiding parties for the express purpose of acquiring wealth through violence.|
This table isn’t meant to be exhaustive in the least, but to give an idea as to what each founder is like. The issue becomes clearer when people try to live up to the example of Mohammed. In my point of view, Mohammed is a fairly immoral person (not because he is a Muslim, but because I don’t care for murderers, warlords or people who have sex with 9 year olds, even if it is normalized in that culture). Mohammed’s claim to speak for God and he being regarded as the supreme example of humanity is a recipe for disaster. Is Mohammed the most immoral person; of course not, but it is hard to make the case that Mohammed is a representative of a moral God. This behavior can be further illustrated by a classical interpretation of Sharia (as found in the “The Reliance of the Traveller“), which belongs to one of the four “schools” of jurisprudence; Shafi’i. The point is that while definitely not all Muslims will interpret Sharia in the same way, there clearly are people who have, and continue to, interpret it in a very medieval way. Since Sharia is the distillation of the Qur’an, the prophet’s life and Hadith, Islam or better yet Mohammedanism, Mohammedanism becomes a problem.
I don’t think it’s the case that some people interpret Sharia (or Sharia Law to be more precise) in a mediaeval or modern way. Sharia Law was distilled in the middle ages and modernisers simply choose to ignore the more barbaric parts. More on that, and the Reliance of the Traveller here: