What is this blog about and why?

 

We've been facing an issue that's at least somewhat related to Islam since sometime. That is, in short, some Muslims carrying out horrible violence in the name of Allah and other Muslims condemning such acts, also in the name of Allah.

So, which Muslims are correct? Obviously, one group of Muslims are definitely wrong, but which one?

Should we just blindly believe what peaceful Muslims say? If so, why shouldn't we equally blindly believe what violent Muslims say?

Should we believe what the majority of Muslims say? If so, since the majority of any religious community usually don't follow the religion properly, why shouldn't we think that it's the minority of Muslims who actually practice their religion?

In other words, why shouldn't we think that it's the minority of Muslims who murder, rape, torture, and destroy in the name of Allah that practice the religion properly?

Saying "Well, if Islam was a bad religion, then so many people wouldn't be following it," isn't a good answer. Nazism was accepted by millions of German speakers. What did that have to do with Nazism being good? Communism was accepted by hundreds of millions of Russians and others. What does that have to do with communism being good? Secularism and atheism are growing rapidly across the world, both of which heavily contradict Islam. Does that mean they both are good? If they both are good, however, since they both contradict Islam than agree with it, then again, Islam is bad.

So, really, mindlessly believing what anyone says about Islam doesn't seem to help us understand Islam. So, we have an alternative.

What's the best way to get the most correct idea about any set of ideas? In simple words, refer to the most authentic sources of that set of ideas. That's how.

It's fair to treat a set of ideas as good if you don't find anything bad with it. So, if you find something bad with a certain set of ideas, it's a good indication that the set of ideas itself is bad, especially if it's in a state of non-reformation, because if a bad set of ideas can't be reformed, the only other option left, is to get rid of it.

So, how to know if an ideology is bad? Here's my three step method.

Step 1: see if there are critics of the said ideology. If there aren't, it's prolly a good ideology.

If there are,

Step 2: see if these critics base their criticisms on authentic sources of the ideology ie if they site authentic sources or parts of such sources to back up their claims against the said ideology. If they don't, very likely, their claims are baseless.

If they do,

Step 3: see if these cited references check out by actually examining the cited parts of the sources. If they don't check out, the criticisms are baseless, and thus, likely there's nothing wrong with the ideology.

If they do check out, however, this means the ideology has the bad traits its critics associate with it. If it has the kinda bad traits that you don't want anything to have around you, then the ideology is worth discarding.

This is my methodology, which I apply to every ideology, including my very own religious ideology that I hold dear, Buddhism.

Now, the last time I laid out this strategy to a muslim, he, as expected, put forth an objection, saying "But any critic doesn't do. The critic has to be credible." But, checking the credibility of the critic is exactly what's done with the 2nd and the 3rd steps of the methodology.

Because, one way, if not the only way, a critic can prove his credibility, is to draw his criticism from credible sources.

Well, why can't we just trust what Muslim scholars say about Islam? Here's why.

We're on a quest to find if there's anything wrong with Islam. This is a form of a criminal investigation to see if Islam is guilty or innocent.

During a criminal investigation, when the investigators aren't sure whether someone is a criminal, or whether a friend of this potential criminal is also a potential accomplice (PA), do they just ask the PA "Did he commit that crime?" And "Are you his accomplice?" And when this PA says "No," just believe him and close the case?

That'd be what corrupt investigators would have done, but not the honest ones. The honest ones will lead the investigation anyway and concluded based on infallible evidence they find.

Similarly, it's pointless to just ask a muslim, even if that's a scholar, the question "Is there anything wring with Islam?" And when he says "No," just believe him. No, that's pointless.

The right thing to do is, accepting his answer, but not blindly believing it, and instead, leading our own investigation into the matter to find the truth ourselves.

Fortunately for us, we aren't alone in this investigation. There are many others who are on the same investigation and have been for much longer than we have, so we can use their findings as well.

From the next article, I hope to publish my findings on Islam and Muslims, and I'd like you to decide yourselves whether,

 1.  Islam is guilty or innocent

 2. Muslims are accomplices of a criminal ideology, or just friends of an innocent one

Stay tuned.