Misunderstanding Religious Identity – Is Freedom of Choice a Religious Rite/Right?

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Mar 19, 2021 at 18:00

Misunderstanding Religious Identity – Is Freedom of Choice a Religious Rite/Right?
One of the greatest tragedies of the human experience is that mankind has been operating under the single greatest delusion of all time: that given the potential of a being of thought and thoughtful expression of self-identity, it became simple for some to think humans have the propensity towards deity: this being a patent lie. However, religion was introduced to amplify intellectual persuasions that humanity can dictate to within such parameters, who is 'god'.
All of the speculations as to whom the human existence owes a duty to recognize the reality of that existence and to Whom is that recognition owed. Opinions vary; however the spiritual war that involves making such a determination is long (nearly as long as the totality of the human experience) and will only resolve itself when all the religious imaginations of the attempt to attain that answer are expended and the finality of the truth of the matter is revealed.
In spite of the propensity of this observer towards the validity of being a follower of the Holy One of Israel and all of that which entails such a belief, the interaction of Islam in coming to replace a religious failing of the expressing the Gospel was not limited to the Arabic community of those times, but other religious influences that were existent in the times of empires, even on the Steppes; of which all were susceptible to ages old threats of whose 'god' was greater.
Islam, though initially instigated within the Arabic community (a society that began as the outcast children of Abraham), was the perfect platform of merging philosophical antipathies of nomadic tribal identities desiring their own sector of existence in a world that was dismissive of such with an intensity to change that dynamic. But they were not alone. When the Jewish sect of followers of Issa made this new perception of deity known, tribal passions were fueled.
Other religious affirmations were on the threshold of being overturned; how does one defend against that? Islam, as a start-up that was not all that impressed, but without the strength of the very-well known Jewish influences against empires (think Babylonian Persia-turned Zoroastrian), had such passion raised in objection and historical rejection to such influences and other religious influences came under threat; an innate strength in Islam was seized upon.
The point being; it is not all that hard to determine that Islam, although initiated in the Arabic community, was appropriated by other ambition of empire and through the philosophical interpretive investments of whole populations of disintegrated empires in order to keep from being overwhelmed by the Romanized sect of the followers of the crucified Nazarene, the effect of which as shown in the narratives of the 'missionaries,' was compelling testimony.
Were this not true, then how does one, like those of us who see in the study of Dr. Pipes, explain that the Arabic sector of Islam is one of the smaller groups; that some of the more intense followers of promoting Islam are not Arabic; in the billion range. To that extent, the difference between Shiite and Sunni is explained quite well in Yemen; ferocity is in view, here. And this is within the community of Islam, Arabic and non-Arabic, where Judaism once was.
The follow up to the point is that Islam is the Gentile presence that is referred to in the Hebrew Holy Writ; and the Persian influence in Islam is the ferocity of a fallen empire seeking to regain empire status, just like the non-Arabic Turkish resurgent Ottoman regime to the north. All other issues of how Islam seems incompatible can be derived from this intent on being the full expression of implementing actions towards the ummah. Hudna is the tactic; ummah, the goal.
Therein lays the dilemma: the right to choose (believe in Yeshua or reject Him) was under attack from the beginning; turn against it in seeking different rites became the methodology to refuse Yeshua as LORD.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".