Islam and the Problem of Tolerance, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Muslims promote the belief that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. However, as is the case with most organized religions, from its inception to the present day, Islam has neither been peaceful nor tolerant. Many people that are devoted to their religion believe that their beliefs are the only valid system of values and some try to demonstrate the superiority of these beliefs by converting others¹. While some religious groups attempt to persuade others of their beliefs through the use of reason, others attempt to covert by force. Islam is exemplary of this latter group². Islam is and always has been violent and drenched with principles of terror accompanied by intolerance.

A hallmark example of violence for the sake of religion can be traced back to the Muslim conquest of Spain during the Umayyad Caliphate conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom in Hispania in 711³. Today, modern Muslims believe that this action allowed for the development of a Golden Age. This lying propaganda is used to camouflage the fact that Muslims destroyed Christian churches, enslaved between 40 and 50 percent of the indigenous population – the others either converted or paid the jizya tax – and beheaded Spanish Roman Catholics and Spanish Jews who refused to convert to Islam or pay the jizya protection tax. Overall, the perception that a Golden Age of Islam existed is due purely to a biased interpretation of events. While the mass destruction of Spain was hailed as an achievement for the Muslim people of this era, many Christians continue to hail this event as an atrocity.

The modus operandi has always been the same: invasion of a country, either by conducting war or surreptitiously in the names of Allah and Muhammad, then forced conversions, destruction of places of worship that are not Islamic or conversions of these places into mosques, forced slavery, and the beheadings of non-believers. In the modern context, this problem continues. The Middle East is a predominantly Muslim region and the governments of these countries are constantly at war internally or externally. The problem of tolerance in Islam becomes multiplied when considering the far-reaching impact that their intolerance has in the modern era. Civil wars have broken out in Egypt and Syria due to political and religious differences⁴. Western civilization needs to constantly consider how to defense themselves from terrorist attacks at the hands of Muslim extremists. And yet, even when other groups attempt to preach tolerance towards Muslims, individual Muslim sects are unable to mend their differences and accomplish this same promotion of peace. This, it is valuable to further examine the philosophical, political, history and religious ideologies that contribute to the current actions carried out by Muslim groups in addition to how this intolerance negatively impacts other groups of people.

The Latin word tolerare means to suffer because of something, to permit, support, encourage or approve of something, to put up with something⁵. To be tolerant means to generally accept a non-interference with actions, beliefs, or undertakings that a person considers to be wrong, but are for some arguable reason still tolerable. A majority of polytheistic and monotheistic religions preach the concept of tolerance, and the love for one’s felloe humans. Judeo-Christian religions are expected to follow the Ten Commandments, which directly advise against murder and other actions that will harm others. However, it is known that Muhammad preached that his followers must convert others to Islam, pay a protective poll tax (the jizya tax), or be beheaded for failing to follow this ideology. It is valuable to determine how advocacy for the jizya tax influences the actions of modern Muslims and how this belief is carried out when subgroups of Muslims enter conflict. By understanding the philosophy and history behind such rash beliefs, it is plausible to gain a greater appreciation for what could be done to put an end to the violence that corrupts the world today at the hand of Muslim intolerance.

A Short History of Toleration

Stoicism

The concept that tolerance is an ethical and necessary practice derived from the beliefs of the stoics that formed during the 3^rd century B.C⁶. Specifically, this school of thought derived from the Hellenistic philosophy, which was formed in Athens. Overall, scholars that were involved in stoicism, such as Seneca and Epictetus, believe that violence and destruction is a consequence of lapses in judgement and that it is necessary to maintain a will that is consistent with what is beneficial for nature⁷. Thus, a man should be judged based on not his thoughts and beliefs, but his actions. Thinkers that adhere to this philosophical belief therefore come to understand a group or an individual’s can be judged on the basis of their repeated actions.

Seneca, a philosopher that contributed significantly to the ideals of stoicism famously argued: “True happiness is to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the future, not to amuse ourselves with either hopes or fears but to rest satisfied with what we have, which is sufficient, for he that is so wants nothing. The greatest blessings of mankind are within us and within our reach. A wise man is content with his lot, whatever it may be, without wishing for what he has not.”⁸ This philosophical belief is relevant to the values that many ancient and modern religions put forward. Specifically, the Ten Commandments direct us to be satisfied by what we have by instructing us to not envy or steal from our neighbors. Furthermore, many religions state that ownership of physical goods can lead to sin. An important tenet of Christianity, for example, is the understanding that is valuable to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ by discarding earthy goods and contributing to those that are in true need of them. Thus, by living in the moment and being satisfied with what we have, we will be able to do good for others.

On the other hand, it is apparent that individuals of the Muslim faith have not been satisfied with what they have, which has triggered their desire to fight both to promote their religion and to procure earthly resources. Specifically, the Quran states, “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path” (48:20)⁹. Thus, rather than being satisfied with the wealth that they have, the Quran directs its followers to go forth and acquire wealth. By this logic, simply following Islam provides these individuals with the right to conquer new lands and take what the Muslim people believe to rightfully belong to them. This very act is seen both in history, which was the case during the conquest of Spain in 711 and is reminiscent in modern politics today. While Muslim countries in the Middle East are involved in international trade, they often strike bargains with other nations that allow them to benefit monetarily in significant access of what one would believe to be deserved for such trade. Thus, following this command from the Quran is happening in both a symbolic and literal sense. Islamic extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) are gaining control “through oil sales, kidnap ransoms, smuggling, extortion, taxes, looting, and bank robberies”¹⁰. This demonstrates that many Islamic groups are willing to pursue money to an extreme, in a manner that is prohibited by most religions but promoted by the Quran.

The failure of Muslim groups to apply concepts of stoicism in their regular practice shows that it is event that they are unwilling to act in a manner that promotes toleration. Rather than applying the belief that it is beneficial to be happy with what one has, these groups enact force to take what they want from others.

Early Christianity

Early Christianity was formed due to the belief that by following the teachings of Jesus Christ, it was possible to achieve salvation. During this time period, however, Christianity formed in Rome under the rule of Nero, who was intolerant of the celebration of any religion other than Roman polytheism¹¹. Nero persecuted and murdered Jews and Christians for practicing religious values that were different from those officially sanctioned by him. As a consequence, early Christianity developed from an understanding that tolerance is an important virtue because even though there may be disagreement regarding personal and religious beliefs, conflict should never reach a point where one loses a live over such differences.

Shortly after the spread of the popularity of Christian faith, many individuals adapted the tenets of this religion to suit their own needs. In spite of this, all sects of Christianity that formed continued to uphold the sense that it is necessary to be tolerant of one another and to take action to ensure that others are protected. For example, John Foxe, a known Puritan, took actions in the early 1500s that would “save Anabaptists from the fire” and he “enunciated a sweeping doctrine of tolerance even towards Catholics, whose doctrines he detested with every fibre of his being”¹². These early puritan roots created the foundation for later Christian thinkers to promote tolerance in their societies. Thomas Jefferson is a famous example of a Christian individual who promoted religious tolerance to the extent that he was willing to accept individuals who practiced faiths other than Christianity¹³. Jefferson famously advocated for religious freedom in the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America. In this manner, it is apparent that Christian principles were founded on the basis of tolerance and Christian groups today support this value because it upholds other ethical tenets of the religion. By supporting the personal beliefs of others, it becomes easier to support all of humanity and to live with others in peace and harmony.

Christian Humanism

Christian humanism is defined as the belief that “human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine”.¹⁴ Since a majority of Christian teachings are based on foundations that were present in the Torah, written by the Jewish people, combined with observations that were made by followers of Jesus Christ, the primary tenet of the religion is that in order to achieve salvation, it is necessary to be kind to others. In a sense, the concept of Christian humanism therefore requires that followers of the faith enact tolerance not just towards one another, but also towards diverse groups of people. Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) and Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) contributed significantly to this belief by demonstrating that tolerance is necessary to avoid religious conflict.

According to a 2013 publication, “In response to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Nicholas of Cusa wrote De pace fidei defending a commitment to religious tolerance on the basis of the notion that all diverse rites are but manifestations of one true religion”¹⁵. Thus, it is important for each individual to respect one another with the recognition that we are all the children of God. Because religions are all manifestations of one true religion, it is valuable to work with the individuals that do not agree with us in order to make them understand why we believe the way we do. In doing so, it is plausible to convince others of the truth of certain religions without causing harm. This is an important understanding because the purpose of religion is to help one another. When Christians want to talk to others about their beliefs and what is necessary to do in order to achieve salvation, they are doing so out of love. By valuing the personal freedom and decision making processes of others, it is more reasonable to promote the elements of humanity that are essentially good. However, when free will is revoked, violence becomes rampant.

During the Protestant Reformation, Erasmus of Rotterdam recognized that the Church was abusing their powers. Furthermore, he saw it his duty as a Christian to help change the system in order to benefit all. When Martin Luther approached Erasmus about his plan to revolutionize the Christian faith, Erasmus politely refused involvement because he viewed Luther’s plan as largely intolerant and extreme. He spoke out against Luther openly in his claim, “As Peace, am I not praised by both me and gods as the very source and defender of all good things? What is there of prosperity, of security, or of happiness that cannot be ascribed to me? On the other hand, is not war the destroyer of all things and the very seed of evil?”¹⁶. When Luther declared that he would strike war against the church for his crimes against the people, Erasmus disagreed with his plan fundamentally. By striking out against the church using force and violence, Luther would be acting against the Christian principles that he was so fervently fighting to defend. True Christianity, therefore, can be defined as a faith that advocates for peaceful resolutions and the well-being of all. Force is not a reasonable option because violence contributes to harm, which undermines the teachings of the New Testament.

Irenic Humanism

Even though the arguments put forth by Erasmus argued largely against the intolerance of Martin Luther, the conflict between Erasmus and Luther demonstrated the value of debate to determine how to resolve important issues regarding the treatment of people and the tenets of a religion¹⁷. Thus, although Erasmus spoke out against Luther’s views, Luther did the Christian people a service by demonstrating that change could be make without imposing violence. Luther acted more rashly about his demands than Erasmus would have liked, but in the end, there was no serious harm inflicted. Instead, Luther effectively challenged the ideas that had been long established by the church. While the church was not pleased with Luther, it could be said that the Protestant Reformation was a relatively peaceful fight¹⁸.

Irenic humanism is characterized by peaceful reasoning and pacifism. Martin Luther exemplifies this concept because even though he was passionate about reform and made extreme demands, he wished to accomplish his goals in a peaceful manner, with the understanding that peace begets peace. An additional understanding put forth by the irenic humanists was that free conscience and the recognition of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the earthly ruler should be supported. Thus, each individual has the right to obey God as they choose, provided that they recognize the power of God as the one true supreme being. According to Jean Bodin, religious tolerance can be achieved by including humanism in the cultural education of youth. He explains:

“I maintain that there may be no law so sacred and divine that could better reinforce the social ties of the city than a common and identical education for all children. Even in spiritual matters, it enables the realization of the most perfect harmony of convictions between all citizens (summa conspiratione civium). However, if the role of ecclesiastical leaders is to ensure that the true religion (religo vera) is not stained by superstition or impiety, it is also the role of the magistrates, who hold the reins of the State, to ensure that the youth do not forsake the one, unchanging religion to follow other, diverse beliefs (ab una et eadem religione in varias distrahatur). In this manner we may conserve the semblance of a State”.¹⁹

Bodin’s statement indicates the importance of advocating for educating youth about tolerance in the classroom. He proposes that it is ideal for religious leaders and governments to collaborate to ensure that children group up being aware of what tolerance is and how they should act in the presence of others with different beliefs. Although such a program is not implemented in all schools, many public schools in the Western world have implemented multicultural lessons that allows them to gain an understanding of the backgrounds of their classmates. Furthermore, many religious leaders across the world advocate for tolerance and the understanding of others. Thus, while Bodin’s precise desire has not been accomplished, the simple notion that children should be taught from a young age to tolerate others has contributed to many such practices across the world.

Unfortunately, however, not all religions advocate for tolerance. Many Muslims in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, such as Africa, Europe, and parts of the United States are taught from an early age that their religion is superior. Furthermore, they are taught by their parents and in their schools in many situations to actively hate and work against people that are non-Muslims. For example, many Muslims in the Middle East are taught to hate Jewish people from birth²⁰. In many instances, this is done to achieve political goals. In 2013, Egypt’s elected president, Mohamed Morsi, reportedly asked his followers to, “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews and Zionists. Not long after, the then-leader of the Muslim Brotherhood described Zionists as “bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians,” “warmongers,” and “descendants of apes and pigs.”²⁰ This type of behavior is the opposite of tolerance and represents action that is common among Muslim leaders. It is therefore necessary to assess the justification of Muslim intolerance in addition to paradoxes of tolerance to exemplify the problems that are inherent with regards to Muslim beliefs.

Justifications of Muslim Intolerance

Actions can be tolerated if they have ethical and moral values. The basis of a majority of religions is to provide their followers with a set of rules to follow. As religious individuals follow these requirements, they are forced to question their behaviors and determine whether their actions fit within the set of moral standards set by their religious beliefs. When these rules are broken, these religions provide the sinner with an opportunity to consider their wrongdoings and to take action to right any wrongs that they have committed. Thus, the philosophy that underlies tolerance is present in religions because the purpose of these faiths is to teach people how they should interact with one another in a manner that promotes peace and harmony.

However, when a religion or belief system has no ethical core, it is not plausible to tolerate the actions or beliefs of such a group. Tolerance is plausible only when the actions of one group does not directly counteract the well-being of another group. Because Islam disrespects any individual or group that does not subscribe to their personal values, they cannot be tolerated. Islam is a cult based on a false reality that is beyond reason. Even though Islam was founded on Jewish and Christian values, many of the interpretations of Jewish and Christian texts have been altered in the Quran in a manner that promotes violence for the sake of Allah and under the direction of Muhammed. Biblical scholars are aware that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, but because Muslims intend to promote their style of worship alone, the world has been plummeted into violence and decay.

Some sources claim that the Quran has 109 verses that call Muslims into war against individuals that do not agree with the other messages set forth by Muhammed²¹. While some scholars claim that these instances of violence are derived from messages put forth by the Old Testament, an analysis of the context of these commandments reveal that the verses contained within the Quran are not intended to be understood in a historical context and therefore can be applied in any situation in which an individual counteracts the Islamic religion. Furthermore, many of the passages in the Quran that pertain to violence are written in a manner that is vague and are therefore left up to the interpretation of the individual. It appears that this holy book was written in this way to allow its readers to listen to any of its commands in any situation that they deem to be fit. To emphasize the lack of tolerance present in the Quran, there are very few lines concerning peace. Thus, by examining the sacred text of the Muslim people, it is possible to demonstrate the intolerance that acts as a basis for the action of Muslim people as a whole.

One section of the Quran reads, “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)”²². Since the creation of Islam in the early 7^th century, Islamic groups have engaged in a series of holy wars to spread the faith and to destroy and non-believers that they identify in their wake²³. The first instance of Muslim conquest known to history was the acquisition of Syria from Byzantine control. Even though the Byzantines attempted to resist their advance, Damascus and Jerusalem, along with other key areas, were seized as a consequence of their militaristic invasion²⁴. This demonstrates that even during the initial establishment of Islam, followers of Muhammed were quick to enact violence against others. This group continued their plight to take over land by conquering Egypt in year 642, Mesopotamia and Persia in year 651, Sindh in 714, Maghreb in 742, Hispania in 741, and Transoxiana in 751²⁵. The main purpose of these exploits were to secure land and require the residents of these areas to practice Islam, or be killed. Because so many individuals wished to protect their lives, Islam spread rapidly during this time period. Today, Islam is one of the more prevalent religions, but considering its violent roots, it is likely that the religion would be less popular today if it had not been for these early violent conquests.

An additional section of the Quran reads, “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things” (2:244)²⁶. Thus, the Quran indicates that God wishes for followers of Islam to slaughter individuals that are not willing to obey the particular set of rules that were conveyed to the people by Muhammed. Not only is this belief intolerant, it is also in direct contradiction with the writings that are present in the Jewish and Christian holy documents, on which the Quran is loosely based. First, the Old Testament states that the Jewish people are the chosen ones, and God is present to protect them. Since the beliefs of Christians follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, this protection extends to them as well. Since God specifically stated that Jewish people and later Christians were the one’s chosen by God, it is ironic that the Quran states that such people should be destroyed for their values. Because these religions came first, it appears that the intention of the Quran and Islamic doctrine is to eliminate these alternate belief systems. However, it is challenging to argue that if Jews, Christians, and Muslims truly follow the same God, that God would command Muslims to kill Jews and Christians, while simultaneously commanding Jews and Christians to protect and respect one another. An all mighty, all knowing, all powerful, all good God simply would not provide this type of instruction to any of His people.

Interestingly, some sections of the Quran continue to promote violence by asking followers of Islam to contradict their natural tendencies for tolerance. Many individuals, when ignoring the influence of their upbringing, wish to do what is right for others. Humans are not naturally at odds with one another, so it is natural to want to protect others. However, the Quran asks Muslims to consider acting against this natural instinct because doing so might be good for them in reality. According to the Quran, “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” (2:216).²⁷ Thus, the Quran justifies violence by demonstrating that it could be virtuous. Furthermore, it goes against the popular belief that people should only fight when they are defending themselves. The context of this passage is important because it does not describe a situation in which an individual would have just reason to commit violent acts. Interestingly, when this portion of the Quran is matched with information from the Hadith, it becomes apparent that Muhammed was using this portion in order to convince his followers to loot merchant caravans for monetary gain. Specifically, Muslims report that, “”Our Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade his people from attacking innocent caravans and only took what had been taken from his people by the polytheists”²⁸. This is an important understanding of Muslim ethics because it shows that actions that people in most religions would deem as an illegal or unethical act is permitted by Muhammed. Christianity and Judaism both preach that it is necessary to treat all individuals with kindness and to attempt to respect differences between neighbors. Based on this passage, it is apparent that the tenet of tolerance does not exist within the Muslim faith, which allows them to use their religious law as justification to commit terrible acts. This is problematic in the modern setting because many Muslim governments use the principles put forth in their Quran as their national law. Countries that rely entirely upon this doctrine therefore legally permit residents to commit these acts against non-believers. On an international scale, this becomes troublesome when trying to quell international problems. Because Muslim governments and individuals believe that they are protected through the law of the Quran, they are more likely to attempt to engage in criminal activity against others because they understand that even if they are caught, their government will be on their side.

While it is apparent that many passages in the Quran dictate that Muslims are allowed to conduct certain actions that other belief systems would deem to be inappropriate, it is especially troubling that the Quran actively scorns those that do not become involved in these violent and unethical activities. Based on the phrasing of such passages, it appears that the Quran commands these individuals to follow the words put forth by Muhammed because if they are not followed, they too can be considered traitors and be subject to punishment. “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward” (4:95).²⁹ Specifically, this passage defines the worth of Muslims based on their actions. Those who engage in these acts of violence will be more worthy in the eyes of God, while those that step back and take action to fight against this violence will not receive a reward. Furthermore, this passage alludes to the specific requirements of “jihad”. Jihad is defined as a struggle against non-believers. If Muslims are not able to participate in jihad, they are therefore not able to contribute to the furthering of the religion and are deemed as unworthy. Thus, it appears that intolerance is a basic value of Islam. Those who are seen as intolerant are those who are considered to be the most worthy in the eyes of Allah, while those who recognize the problems that exist with the Quran are considered to be problematic and not true followers of this philosophy.

Perhaps one of the most troubling components of the Quran is the section that states, “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”²⁹. Immediately, this quote appears to be concerning because it promotes the idea that an injured enemy should be pursued and destroyed. Instead of offering pity to an individual that is no longer able to do harm or defend his or herself, the Quran asks that this person be destroyed. This is seen as justifiable because this situation assumes that the victim is an individual that does not believe in the Quran or the teachings of Muhammed. However, by considering this passage in the context of modern experiences, it becomes apparent that this section of the Quran essentially gives permission for Muslim terrorists to engage in suicide bombing and other attacks that cause them harm but destroy non-believers during the process. “If you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain” is reminiscent of the concept “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” established by the Hammurabi’s Code³⁰. While the Hammurabi’s Code functioned as the first effective law system, it could be said to be primitive and fail to incorporate compassion or ethics. The idea that by destroying oneself it is possible to destroy an enemy is a dangerous idea, and one that no ethical human being should consider to be reasonable. Christianity holds the concept that life is precious and all must be done to protect it, even if it is the life of an enemy. On the other hand, Islam shows no concern for the well-being of others, which is one of the reasons that it is perceived as a highly violent system of belief.

Overall, it is apparent that Islam is a religion of intolerance. It actively promotes violence against non-believers. Furthermore, many of the commands put forth by the Quran asks for devout Muslims to sacrifice themselves to harm others. The Quran was written primarily to persuade people to follow the religion, but to ensure that such a mission was successful, these passages are written to allow violence to promote this cause when necessary. A majority of modern religions exist purely to promote peace and unity among man. The belief is that by enacting from tolerance, it is possible to learn from one another. Even if we cannot convince others to follow our path to salvation, we can make the world a more peaceful and better place by acknowledging that we all share the same standards that dictate the safety and well-being of others. As such, it is challenging to consider Islam a religion. Islamic individuals and governments actively fight against the values that legitimate religions constantly fight to protect. Since Islam is a religion of intolerance, it is no longer plausible to tolerate their violent and unethical behavior. We cannot promote acceptance of a tradition that is intended to harm others. As long as such belief systems perpetuate, it will not be possible to achieve peace on Earth.

The Paradoxes of Tolerance

The Paradox of the Tolerant Islamist

Islamists consider non-believers to inferior. This understanding derives directly from the Quran and is consistently supported by the decisions that Muslim leaders make with regards to politics and local conflict. Taking physical action against others on the basis of their belief system is an ethically unacceptable prejudice because we were created in God’s image, not in Allah’s image, and not in Muhammad’s image. Even though the Islamist argues that non-believers can be accepted if they convert to Islam instead of suffering the penalty of death, or if they pay the protective Dhimmi jizya tax, these individuals are not demonstrating tolerance because they are indicating their superiority and the need for inferior individuals to provide them with a sign of their subordination. Thus, the Islamist cannot show any virtue of tolerance because the Islamist has not changed his anti-Islam belief. The Islamist is intolerant and tolerance is non-existent in this particular belief system.

As indicated, the Quran demonstrates that Muslims are considered superior to non-believers and that it is their responsibility to either eliminate them or force them to submit. This is a problem that is prevalent across the world. This issue is a paradox because even though Islamists claim to be acting according to the word of God, no just God would promote violence in the manner that has been historically wrought by the Muslims. Furthermore, this violence is continuing to occur today. The sense that a group of people could be peaceful while attempting to systematically destroy non-believers is ironic. A group that believes that their philosophical beliefs supersede the right for others to live is baffling. Thus, it is obvious that an individual cannot both be considered “tolerant” and an “Islamist”. Islam goes against the very nature of tolerance, and no God would provide people with power to take away the life that He has created.

Many individuals that were raised in the Muslim religion quickly recognized that their religion was not one of tolerance and did their best to leave it. Such was the case of Ibn Warraq, who was raised in the religion and then recognized its terrors when hearing that individuals that did not follow the faith should be put to death. He recalls, “It is a depressing fact that during the Gulf War almost every single Muslim and Arab intellectual sympathized with Saddam Hussein, because, we are told, `he stood up to the West’. In this explanation is summed up all sense of Islamic failure, and feelings of inferiority vis-a-vis the West. The Muslim world must be in a dire way if it sees hope in a tyrant who has murdered literally thousands of his own countrymen”.³¹ The idea that the West is victimized simply because of the diversity of religious and personal values that they hold is troubling. Muslims are quick to follow leaders that they perceive to be strongly against these ethical and peaceful ideas and these individuals are more likely to gain even more support when they offer the idea of physically attacking the West. Ultimately, Muslims were quick to follow Hussein without recognizing that he is a dangerous man who cares neither about the well-being of people living in the West nor the very people that he pretended to serve. Thus, intolerance is constantly propagated in this community and stands to worsen over time when the leaders that are the most intolerant are those who are constantly supported by Muslim followers. While the government and revolutionary leaders are the primary problems, the extent of support that they receive from citizens indicates that this problem goes beyond the government. All Muslims are involved in action to bring down non-believers as a tenet of their personal values.

The Paradox of Moral Islam

The concept of Islam creates a moral dilemma. Individuals that follow this belief system believe that it is both moral and reasonable to reject mostly anything that is anti-Islam or does not follow their specific values. Simply put, an action or belief is deemed immoral by Islam if it goes against the teachings of the Quran and Muhammed. What is right for Muslims, is therefore wrong for most other individuals. The technical definition of morality includes the understanding that individuals will consider their actions carefully and determine whether they are right or wrong according to their personal values. Typically, the “correct” decision is the one that is best for oneself or their community, while the “wrong” decision can cause harm to oneself or community. Thus, what is considered to be the correct decision for Muslims would be considered the wrong decision for Christians and other members of religious groups.

According to a Muslim website regarding the problems with etiquette that individuals that follow this belief system face, “A few days ago, a Muslim lady from Texas allegedly killed her two children because they were autistic and she could not handle the pressure of raising them… Last year, a very successful Muslim entrepreneur killed his wife because of domestic issues and now awaits trial. The entrepreneur had known to have been involved in a number of domestic violence cases earlier… Couple of years ago, a Muslim man killed his daughters because of them allegedly having affairs with their boyfriends”³². According to the writer of the blog that published this information, these problems were due to a lack of education about morality in these households. However, this type of moral breakdown frequently occurs in the Muslim population, so it is more likely that this violence resulted as a consequence of teachings of the Quran rather than a lack of education at home. When people grow accustomed to a particular belief system, they reach the point where they no longer question what it says. Thus, even though many of these individuals believed that they were acting morally or doing the right thing, they ended up committing terrible crimes. It would be valuable to erase such horrors from our culture and the first step to accomplish this is by considering how ethical and moral decisions are defined by Muslims and individuals that adhere to the principles of other religions.

An example of a moral decision that would be considered “correct” in Islam is the slaughtering of non-believers who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the protective Dhimmi jizya tax. Christianity teaches “thou shalt not kill”, so this moral decision would be considered incorrect for an individual of this faith. Thus, it is apparent that morality alters based on the belief system of the individual. Morality exists within the context of a society or a religion. In some cultures, a beneficial action could be deemed as beneficial while the same action can be deemed as violent or immoral by others. However, it is valuable to understand the concept of morality in relation to ethics in order to determine how individuals evaluate their tendency to engage in or avoid certain behaviors. Utilitarianism, for example, defines ethical behavior as the action that benefits the greatest number of people³³. Many modern religions utilize utilitarianism as a principle to define ethical action. Thus, murder of any type must be avoided and engaging in war and other mass conflicts is in direct conflict with this value. On the other hand, the decision to kill an individual with or without harming oneself for the sake of thoughts directly contradicts utilitarianism. The preservation of life is held as more valuable than the preservation of an ideology, so by killing individuals that are opposed to Islam, these individuals are behaving both immorally and unethically.

The Paradox of Placing Limits

The paradox of placing limits necessitates that a condition of reciprocity be put in place to address the issue of violence and lack of morality in Islam. Because Islam considers non-believers to be wrong on the basis of their personal values, it is apparent that these individuals are one-sided and intolerant. Thus, instead of allowing this unethical and criminal action to continue, it is necessary for individuals that do not believe in Islam to fight against this intolerance with the concept of ethical and moral intolerance. It is not possible for non-believers of Islam to be tolerant of this belief system because doing so would directly contradict the well-being of many individuals and continue to promote the violence that has become so prevalent at the hands of Islamic government leaders. Thus, it is necessary to place limits on the actions that are taken by Muslims in order to protect the well-being of Christians, Jews, and any other religious group that is likely to suffer at the hand of Islamic violence.

Fighting intolerance with intolerance is a paradox because while intolerance is not ideal, these concepts interact in a manner that will promote peace among all religious groups. By placing limits against Islam, we are demonstrating that non-believers will not tolerate the actions that are taken against us in the name of Allah. Toleration is thus not a virtue; it defeats and obliterates at the moment of its inception. We must determine how to interact with one another in a way that does not necessitate violence and instead allows us to work towards peace. Therefore, to do so, we must collaborate to eliminate violence. In this manner, we will finally be able to live in a world in which tolerance exists and is not just a theoretical possibility.

It is impossible for Islam, Muhammad, or any present-day Imam to resolve the paradox of the tolerant Islamist, the paradox of the moral Islamist, or the paradox of placing limits because Islam cannot distinguish between moral and ethical instances in the same manner that other belief systems have developed to recognize. Islam is definitively intolerant by definition. For it to become tolerant and ethical, it must dissolve completely. Thus, tolerance and Islam cannot exist simultaneously; these are conflicting ideas in the context of both history and in modern practice.

Conclusion

It is apparent that based on both the history of the Islamic belief system and modern implementation of the religion that the individuals that follow Islam are intolerant. From the founding of the religion, it is apparent that Muhammed used the Quran and his teachings to spread Islam to further his own influence. By convincing people that they were acting according to the will of an all powerful being, he was able to persuade them to commit actions that contradicted their own sense of morality and ethics. Due to the influence that this initial spreading that this belief system had, it is widely prevalent today, which is problematic for the sake of world peace and the stability of international affairs. Overall, it is detrimental to support a belief system that promotes violence and ignorance in the 21^st century. It is therefore valuable to consider the value of alternative belief systems and religions in addition to how this knowledge of Islam can be used to dissuade Islamic leaders against the violence that is occurring across the world.

When Muslims are able to restrain themselves, they take on the appearance of tolerance. Thus, if an individual is not directly challenging their beliefs or present in an environment in which they will be caused harm for being a non-believer, it appears that Muslims follow moral and ethical standards. However, when there is a cause for conflict, it becomes immediately apparent that Muslims are willing to give their own lives for the elimination of non-believers. Thus, Islam is not an ethical practice because the core of Islam thought is against peace and the protection of society. Such behavior is at best prudential and an instrument by which the means achieves the ends. Thus, tolerant Islam does not exist because they are not ethical, nor are they concerned about anything other than the propagation of their own belief system.

If we understand that Islam is not tolerant, then we must also understand that it is necessary to reject Islam in order to better support the well-being of non-believers, who’s lives may be on the line if Muslims are allowed to continue enacting violence on a global scale. Islam violates ethical principles and therefore, it must not be tolerated. Counteracting the principles that have been set forth by these individuals requires our prudence, justice, courage, faith, strength, logic, morality, and our perseverance, which are indeed our virtues, and the virtues of any existing moral and ethical religion. Ultimately, Islam is a cult and filled with individuals that vehemently hate non-believers to the point that their holy book directs our extinction. This creates a problematic conflict because a war appears unavoidable. To maintain our own principles, we must determine an intellectual way in which we can destroy those in favor of tolerating Islam. The only way to counter Islam is by exercising and expounding the logical truth against it. It is the right and the responsibility of the free-thinking Western world or the dar al Harb to suppress Islam, if need be by force. Ironically, it is only then that we will be able to achieve peace.

Islam can never coexist with those who favor rational thought. Just as the Quran favors addressing their problem solving needs with violence, beheadings, kidnappings, and slavery instead of discussion, we will need to meet these ideals with extreme thoughts and actions as well. Governments headed by Muslim officials today continue to harm those opposed to them without a fair trial. And yet, these activities are considered holy because according to the Quran, they are supported by Allah. It is not possible to tolerate a belief system that considers itself to be outside the jurisdiction of rational law. We cannot tolerate this level of intolerance. Islam persecutes non-believers, which destroys more lives on average than it protects. Islam promotes kidnappings, killings, polygamy, slave trade, and slavery under various ruses. Thus it is criminal; it is evil. It is necessary for individuals that disagree with the violent tenets of Islam to stand together and unite against the terrors that are supported by their governmental systems and the sense of entitlement that they have with regards to the resources and livelihood of those that do not worship in the same way as them. Just as we cannot tolerance any intolerance, we must find ways to eliminate the dangers of Islam in order to promote tolerance among those with personal and religious ethical and moral beliefs. Ultimately, we are not just lowering ourselves to the level of intolerance; we are doing all that is within our means to combat Islam in order to fight for the existence of humanity. We are fighting for the existence of a world in which neighbor does not engage in fighting with neighbors and a world that will allow us to all live in peace as children of God.

Bibliography

Ali, A.H. “Why Middle East Muslims are taught to hate Jews”. The Christian Science  Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2013/0124/Why-Middle-East-Muslims-are-taught-to-hate-Jews (accessed January 27, 2016).

Alkin, S.F. “Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei and the meta-exclusivism of religious  pluralism”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 74, no. 2, (2012): 219-235.

Al-Rawandi, I. “Review of “Why I Am Not a Muslim””.  http://infidels.org/library/modern/ibn_al-rawandi/review.html (accessed January 27, 2016).

Andrew, Edward. “Jean Bodin on Sovereignty”. Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts, 2(2012): 75–84.

Arlandson, J.M. “Jesus and Muhammad on wealth”. Answeringislam.org. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/wealth.htm (accessed January 27, 2016).

Brennan, Tad. The Stoic Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): pp. 5.

Brooks-Pollock, T. “Paris attacks: Where does Isis get its money and weapons from?”.

Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/paris-attacks-where-does-isis-get-its-money-and-arms-a6736716.html (accessed January 27, 2016).

Coffey, J. Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History. (Pearson Education, 2000): pp. 23.

Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain, 409–711 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), pp. 44.

Daniel, Elton L. The Islamic east. In The New Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1. (Cambridge University Press, 2010): pp. 14.

Dickens, A.G. The English Reformation. (London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1978): pp. 439–440.

Donner, Fred M. The Early Islamic Conquests. (Princeton University Press, 2014): pp. 52.

Erasmus, “The Complaint of Peace,” The Essential Erasmus, ed. John Dolan (New York: Continuum, 1990), 177.

Gerrie ter Haar, “Religion: Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace?” in Bridge or Barrier: Religion, Violence and Visions for Peace, ed. Gerrie ter Haar and James J. Busuttil (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005), pp. 18-36.

Grant, Michael. Nero. (New York: Dorset Press, 1989): pp. 7.

Hardin, Russell. Morality within the Limits of Reason. (University Of Chicago Press, 1990): 23.

Iqrasense. “Are Muslims lagging behind in Islamic Morals and Etiquettes?” http://www.iqrasense.com/muslim-character/are-muslims-lagging-behind-in-islamic-morals-and-etiquettes.html (accessed January 27, 2016).

Martin Luther, “The Large Catechism, trans. Robert H. Fisher (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), 2-3.

Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will,” Discourse on Free Will, trans. Ernst F. Winter (New York: Continuum, 1990), 100-1.

Mandino, Og. A Better Way to Live: Og Mandino’s Own Personal Story of Success Featuring 17 Rules to Live By. (New York: Bantam, 1990): pp. 74.

Murphy, Andrew R. Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001): pp. 2.

Nathan C. Funk and Christina J. Woolner, “Religion and Peace and COnflict Studies,” in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies, ed. Thomas Matyok, Jessica Senehi, and Sean Byrne (Toronto: Lexington Books, 2011), pp. 351-358.

New World Encyclopedia. “Christian Humanism”. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism (accessed January 27, 2016).

Nicolle, David. Yarmuk AD 636: The Muslim Conquest of Syria. (Osprey Publishing, Gfv 1994): pp. 45.

Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997): pp. 141.

Seddon, Keith, Epictetus’ Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes. (New York: Routledge, 2005): pp. 217.

Tausch, Arno. Globalization, the environment and the future “greening” of Arab politics. (Connecticut: REPEC, 2015): pp. 15.

The Religion of Peace. “Myths of Muhammed”. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/raid-caravans.aspx (accessed January 27, 2016).

The Religion of Peace. “What does Islam teach about violence?” http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx (accessed January 27, 2016).