MR. KHAN AND THE GOLDEN RULE
I have several patients of the Muslim faith and you wouldn't know they were Muslim if you saw them. Save one professional woman who wears a head scarf. Every one of them though has assimilated into the community, lived here for years, and they are, as far as I can tell, very good citizens.
In fact, as good as citizens, if not better, than the Muslim man who recently spoke at the DNC and castigated the Republican presidential candidate for his solution to the ongoing threats by Muslim terrorists upon innocent Americans and others. Mr. Khan, and many others, disagree with the proposed solution, one of many, of which is a strategy to thoroughly vet Muslims immigrating from countries and territories that facilitate terror against Americans.
As he scolded Mr. Trump he waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution. While he probably did not have on his person a copy of the Koran, it is a certainty that he has one at home.
And as we are all slowly learning more about the Muslim faith these days, it is in Mr. Khan's Koran that we find an ambiguity that concerns Americans. It has to do with the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Every religion save Islam.
In Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor"
In Hinduism: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself"
In Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"
In Confucianism: "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others"
In Islam one finds the reverse Golden Rule:
"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Be merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers" (Qur'an 48:29)
"Never take unbelievers for friends" (3:28)
"Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (2:191)
"Do not befriend the unbeliever" (3:28)
"Fight them and show them harshness" (9:123)
"Smite their heads" (47:4)
The concern and question, a fair one I think, many Americans have is how is it that a well-assimilated man such as Mr. Khan, and perhaps our Muslim friends, can interpret the Koran one way, a peaceful way, all the while ignoring these Koranic teachings against the Golden Rule, while other Muslim men and women hold these particular Koranic teachings dear to their hearts and indeed act upon them?
What is the Muslim community doing to dispel or renounce these reverse-Golden Rule teachings so that all Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others can live peacefully together?
Perhaps the now notable Mr. Khan, an immigration lawyer and member of the Islamic Society of North America (supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood) who assists wealthy Muslims, is working towards this end. Perhaps. But do we hear prominent Muslim leaders disavowing or abnegating these particular Koranic teachings in public -- so that we, law-abiding Americans as well as all Muslims, can be assured and confident that Muslim leaders and clerics are not passively allowing those who misinterpret their faith to have the day?
Perhaps they are reticent to do so for fear of being labeled an apostate. This would be no surprise since Muslim terrorists have been invited to perform the Haj in Mecca without reprisal from moderate or "peace-loving" Muslims.
It appears that there will always be those Muslims who follow the "sword" verses of the Koran, subordinating to it the Golden Rule verses. And for each day that passes that "peace-loving" Muslims, presumably like Mr. Khan, withhold renunciation of this ambiguity within the Muslim community, then the more we need corrective solutions offered by politicians like Mr. Trump -- solutions not unlike those strategies implemented by the CDC in keeping us safe from the Ebola and Zika viruses -- measures that prevent entry of that which causes certain harm.
In France they are monitoring mosques and are selectively closing those mosques in which the reverse Golden Rule is preached. Compared to this solution, Mr. Trump's remedy seems rather tame -- and sane.
Let us pray that Muslim leaders, like Mr. Khan, will have the fortitude to abnegate in public these reverse Golden Rule teachings in the Koran. Because if they are truly peace-loving as they claim to be to all of mankind, and not just to other Muslims, then they will do so and instill in Americans, who continue to be threatened by men and women of the Muslim faith, a confidence and hope that we indeed can all live peacefully together without the fear of reprisal, from here or abroad.
It's ironic that a man whose faith has railed against and disallowed in many countries the freedom of speech has been given an opportunity to freely speak against those who sincerely wish to create an environment in which all may freely speak -- and safely so.
Does a man whose faith rails against freedom of speech really have a right to freely speak against those who wish to re-create a safe environment for all to speak freely? And how does Mr. Khan comport his understanding of Islam with that of the young Muslims who feel justified in their faith in cutting the throat of a priest?