There is an argument that I have seen some of my Facebook friends make recently. The argument is that Islam is “objectively worse” than other religions. (A claim popularized by Richard Dawkins.) When one looks at the behavior of ISIL, or the Saudi government for that matter, this can seem to make sense. However, this argument is a slippery slope in a couple of ways. First, it can be viewed as a backhanded endorsement of other religions. Second, it can be used as an excuse to justify attacking Muslims. This is an important point. There are ongoing persecutions of Muslim minorities in countries such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Whatever one may think of Islam, there should be no excuse for punishing people for their religious beliefs.
Moreover, this argument is not constructive. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Does anyone really believe that these people are going to change their religious affiliation just because some of us think their religion is crappier than others? I don’t think so. We need to find ways to unite people, rather than emphasize artificial distinctions.
The Spanish Prisoner 
October 26, 2014 at 9:33 am |
I agree totally with your rejection of this false argument. ISIL is just a reactionary political movement cloaked in religious garb; the argument actually makes an unwarranted concession to ISIL’s arrogant and pompous claim to speak for all Muslims. The best answer to this false idea is being given in Kobani right now: the people who have done more than anyone else in the world to stop ISIL in their tracks are also mostly Muslims.
October 26, 2014 at 9:49 am |
You are right. Kobani is the best response to this argument.