One of the most difficult things about religious discussions is that there is a major disparity between what a religious person believes and what the religion they claim to believe actually teaches. One can say "Islam teaches", one cannot say "Muslims believe". One can say "Catholicism teaches", one cannot say "Catholics believe". One can say "Mormonism teaches", one cannot say "Mormons believe". This applies to all religions, unfortunately including Christianity.
This is because there are three elements of religion: Knowledge, faith, and integrity. Effectively, perfect religion requires you to know what your religion teaches, believe that those teachings are true, and be honest enough to both confess and act on them. Of course, no one is perfect, and so no one's religion is perfect.
Of course, there are exceptions within some religions. Usually, the founders, main prophets or even modern leaders are seen as near perfect, if not totally so. For this article, let's focus on just two: Islam and Christianity.
First, I would like to focus on Islam, as this is the religion that inspired this article. I came across a Facebook debate about face coverings in banks. One man argued that women should not be allowed to wear hijabs in banks, as banks typically frown upon identity-concealing headgear. Specifically, sunglasses and hoodies were noted. This lead to a debate about Shariah law and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A dissenter argued that a Muslim is quite capable of living in the United States and following her faith.
Normally, I would argue that this statement requires a complete ignorance of Islam. However, for sake of this article, I'm going to take a different approach. See, as I said at the beginning, there's a difference between "Islam teaches" and "Muslims believe". In Islam, Muhammad is said to be the pattern of conduct for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21), so if Muhammad did something, Muslims must (or at the very least should) do it also. Muslims are also told that they must follow and obey Muhammad to be loved by Allah (Qur'an 3:31-32), that they can have no faith if they find any resistance in their hearts to any of Muhammad's judgements (4:65), that they must obey Muhammad (24:56), and that when a matter has been decided by Allah and Muhammad, Muslims have no option but to obey (33:36). Those who disobey are "clearly on the wrong path". All of this is in the Muslim holy book, which means it is the official teaching of the religion, which is repeated several times, that a Muslim cannot disagree with Muhammad.
But in our modern day, Islam is what each individual Muslim wants it to be. At least, so long as it is acceptable to the Liberals who defend Islam. Modern Muslims can say Muhammad made mistakes, disobey Muhammad's commands, resist Muhammad's judgments with all their heart, they can even say that some of the things Muhammad taught have "no place in Islam". If a Muslim can disagree with Muhammad on so much and still be considered a Muslim, I'm going to make a shock announcement.
I AM A MUSLIM!
My reasoning is simply this: If Muslims can pick and choose which parts of Islam to follow, rejecting the rest, then I can also pick which parts of Islam to follow. As it happens, the Qur'an does contain statements I rather like. Qur'an 3:55, 5:47, 5:68, 6:114-115, 10:94, 18:27, 29:46, 42:13, and 61:14 all speak very highly of Judeo Christianity.
Qur'an 5:47 is especially helpful to me. In it, we read "And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors" (Shakir). Given that the Injeel is the Muslim word for Gospel (some translations even render the word as "Gospel"), the Qur'an tells me I am a transgressor if I do not judge by the Gospel.
Therefore, as a Muslim, I must be a Christian. As a Muslim, I must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for my sins, and that He rose again. This is obviously the most anti-Muslim thing you could possibly say. The Qur'an, after all, says that Allah has no son, and that Allah saved Jesus from crucifixion. But if other Muslims can ignore parts of their religion that they don't like, such as the parts of the Qur'an that effectively say Christianity is true, then I, as a Muslim, can also ignore the parts of Islam that I don't like, such as the parts of Islam that distinguish it from Christianity.
Just as Liberals are quite happy to let Muslims identify as Muslims in spite of holding some very unIslamic beliefs, they are quite happy to let Christians identify as Christians in spite of some very unChristian beliefs. But there is a double standard. When it comes to... shall we say "undesirable" characters, the attitude is reversed. See, logic (as well as the Islamic sources) dictates that Muhammad is the ultimate Muslim. Logic (as well as the Christian source) dictates that Jesus is the ultimate Christian. Both their words and their deeds matter.
However, because Liberals (and of course Muslims themselves) seek to defend Islam, Islamic terrorists are typically barred from having an opinion on Islam. It is either said that they are not real Muslims, or that they're bad examples. Yet, Muhammad was a terrorist. Islamic terrorists are simply following his example and his commands.
On the other hand, these same Liberals aren't thrilled when you try to separate "Christian" radicals from Christianity. Even when someone follows neither Christ's example, nor His commands, they are labelled as Christian based purely on their claim to be so.
You see, then, the inconsistent mess when it comes to examining these two religions. It is possible to deny 90% of your own religion, and yet still identify with it. That is, until it gets inconvenient. See, we all know that no one reading this post will take my claims to be a Muslim seriously. But for consistency's sake, you must! In order to be consistent, you must let me be inconsistent! To say I am not a Muslim is to admit that Islam is more than just a profession of faith. It is also about conformity to Muhammad's teachings.
But this becomes a problem in itself. After all, the whole reason most Muslims pick and choose which parts of Islam to believe and profess is because Islam, on the whole, is not true. Morally, most Muslims are better people than Muhammad ever was. Scientifically, Muhammad would have failed every high school exam. Historically, Islam has no foundation. Logically, this very article has shown a major contradiction in Islam. Islam is just not true.
Can the same be said of Christianity? Thank God, no. To be sure, just as there are inconsistent Muslims, there are inconsistent Christians. Like I said, the one and only perfect Christian in history is Jesus. Everyone else lacks knowledge, faith, and integrity to some degree. And yes, that does include me. I'm not going to pretend I know everything there is to know about Christianity, nor do I pretend I'm not a sinner. But Christianity is true, and as a result, a Christian does not need to pick and choose when to be consistent. So, my Muslim friends, why not convert today? If you're going to be inconsistent with Islam, why not instead become consistent with Christianity?