Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Islam--Mecca vs Medina?" video.

The way I see it, Islam's main problem is that unlike Jesus, Mohammed actually existed. And unlike Jesus, Mohammed not only claimed spiritual authority, but also earthly authority. Jesus is an anti-establishment figure. He never held earthly power. He was the rebel. The opposition without power. And the advantage of being in opposition is that you have no responsibilities. Therefore, you can criticize, but as you have no responsibilities, you can't be blamed for anything. By contrast, Mohammed had a great many responsibilities. He was a leader of people and, like all leaders, he had to make decisions based on compromise. He, like all leaders, had to act hypocritically. And there is the problem. How do you justify hypocrisy in man so perfect? You basically have two options. You can yourself (if you are Muslim) be hypocritical about your faith, and condemn Mohammed's bad and less than holy actions, while at the same time holding him up as perfect. Or, you can justify his bad actions as being moral, as, being perfect, Mohammed can be without fault. Seems to me that Islam and Muslim's need more hypocrisy (in the good sense) in their beliefs. After all, Christianity has had to learn hypocrisy regarding the old testament. When people stop justifying immoral and wicked acts on the basis of their supposed divinity, and instead bury those embarrassing parts of their religious texts away out of sight, then you get progress in religion.
12
I have read arguments that Mohammed never actually existed either. But so far as I know, it is far more likely that he did. What you have with Mohammed is basically an earlier version of Joseph Smith. Most 'new' religions build on what is already there. Just like one holy place is built on top of another. You can see why that is, because it far easier to work with what is already there, than to create something entirely new. It's also safer. Better to appear ultra pious to the point you are considered a new prophet of an existing god. Than to risk blasphemy and end up dead. Another example of a earlier Joseph Smith is Hong Xiuquan. As for whether Jesus existed, the best 'evidence' that he did is pretty poor. Most of it simply references early Christians as proof, rather than evidence of Jesus himself. But in my opinion that is actually one of Christianity's strengths. Not a weakness. He's basically a mythical Robin Hood figure. He had no grand palaces or servants or slaves. He is the ideal not the reality. And is therefore untainted with responsibility or hypocrisy.
1
So the spread of a religious belief is proof of the existence of that religion's god? There are numerous different religions around the world and throughout history. They can't all be true. And if one or more are false, then that proves the belief in made up deities can and do spread.
1
Kalo Arepo That would be against the message of the new testament. Which teaches that suffering is morally pure. Victimhood is a virtue. And that violence is never the answer. So clearly leading an army would break his pacifist ideology from the very start. Obviously, in the real world such an ideology would lead only to tyranny of the worst kind. In its purest form, pacifism is the abdication of responsibility, not only for others and those of later generations, but for yourself also. It's unworkable in the real world. But then if your ultimate goal is to move on to the next, you simply see this world as an inconvenience. So why should that matter? You could always ask how it is that such a pacifist ideology could spread so far and last so long? But the reality is that those that spread it were of course not pacifist at all. But again, here Christianity is able to claim that its prophet has clean hands. Can Jesus be held accountable for what those who came after him did? That is the benefit of following someone who never existed and who remains untainted by the needs of reality. It's very different for the followers of Mohammed. Because all heroes have faults. So when you deify your heroes and make them morally perfect, you have to be prepared to justify their every action. You can't have a morally imperfect prophet who is morally perfect.
1