A few days ago someone (a FB friend of a friend) posted a video online, on the 'true' teachings of Islam.
She appended an appeal to Allah, that he enable us all to spread the true message. I have seen many such links. They are all of the same ilk. They claim that 'true' Islam has no place for violence, misogyny, anti-semitism or world domination through force. 'True' Islam, they claim, is all about a life of peaceful submission to a benevolent, all powerful deity.
They claim to know better than the Taliban. They claim to know better than Al-Qaeda. They claim to know better than the wicked imams and callous indoctrinators who send testosterone-sodden young men to explosive and murderous perdition.
But HOW do they justify this superior knowledge and understanding of holy writ? Whence is their authority? If the authority is the deity himself, then why are his many allegedly holy books not written to be less ambiguous? Moreover, why does he not intervene to promulgate the 'true' message himself? To do so ought surely to lie within his omnipotent purview.
The simple fact is that they do not know. They cannot know. They are simply putting forward the interpretation of Islam that best suits their own chosen world view. And that is precisely what the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are doing too.
No-one has proved the existence of any deity, and there is no evidence at all in his favour. In all probability he does not exist. We certainly are not entitled - none of us - to use the word 'true' in connection with a treatise on his actions or intent.
What were Sydney Carton's true intentions when he took another's place at the guillotine in A Tale of Two Cities? Does it mean anything at all to speak of his true intentions, his true beliefs, his true feelings? Carton is a product of Charles Dickens's imagination. He is words on a page, describing a character in the mind of an author. Readers could - and do - debate endlessly on subtle facets of literary characters, what they might have done had the circumstances been slightly different, etc., but is there a real truth out there, waiting to be found? Of course there is not. And neither is there a 'true' interpretation of Islam.
So, in order to make an honest declaration of their position, the soft Islamic liberals ought surely to drop the word 'true' from their propaganda. They mean 'what we would wish to be true', not what is demonstrably true.
If I were to claim that Stoke City Football Club were the 'true' epitome of footballing excellence, I would not have to wait long for someone to question the validity of the word 'true'. They would quickly point out that truth is objective, not something that varies according to one's point of view. Why does the same not happen to the truth-wielding Islamic liberals? Again we see the disproportionate respect which we are all expected to hold towards claims based on religion. Well, not in my case. I will not respect any claim about objective reality that cannot be tested by rational means.
For my part, I would certainly not wish for the existence of a monstrous despot like the god of the Bible or the Qur'an. If I were to post my utopian wish list on FB it would not include anyone or anything so vile, selfish or arrogant. It would feature the universal popularity of reasoned thinking, and the pursuit of a fulfilling life for all, based on using every means available to maximise the well-being of all sentient creatures. No omnipresent supernatural dictators, no threats of everlasting servitude in so-called paradise, and of course no eternal torture for thought crime.
If you are advertising what you would wish to be true, have the common decency to admit it instead of superciliously trying to claim impossible privileged information. If you are claiming something that is demonstrably true, back it up with verifiable evidence, please.
