As if the Muslim religion didn’t have enough problems in the often less than mutually tolerant text of the Koran, now its radical exponents have run afoul of Kant’s ever-present Categorical Imperative.
As Muslim murders Muslim, the warring Sunnis and Shiites each maintain that their religion lends support to their bloody sectarianism. To the extent that it does, it runs counter to K’s Categorical Imperative, which, as every schoolchild in America is taught by the age of five, states, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words, set a good example, in fact, one so laudable we can all join in.
Now, imagine if the Muslim manifesto for mayhem did become a universal standard of behavior. Instead of principles sanctified by religion, their flaming intolerance sounds more like improvised bylaws for Murder Incorporated.
So what do we have, particularly among extremists who advocate a worldwide caliphate through decapitating everyone who disagrees with their beliefs, but definitive proof via Immanuel Kant that such an idea necessarily disqualifies itself.
If everyone believed as they do, it would be just fine for everyone to kill off anyone who doesn’t agree with exactly, in their murderous judgment, makes a true believer in Mohammed or in anything else.
Certainly, if Mohammed were interested in the multiplication of his followers to the max, the internecine wars among the Muslims in Iraq via Al-Qaeda or not would be enough to make him tear at his tent.
And just as assuredly IK would spin as he viewed the starry night at the contradictory nature of the wish to make a religion universal when, given the activities of its most flamingly irrational advocates, it cannot possibly become a universal standard of behavior.
What we see, instead of religion's true intent, is self-defeating stupidity.
To mollify their convinced fury, extremists might contemplate a conversation between Mohammed and Kant, in which Mohammed expresses his hopes for the future of his religion and Kant cautions him that any beliefs that encourage murder would disqualify the religion from spreading any wider than it recklessly might.
So the sides have been arrayed: the warriors of Muslim fanaticism, brandishing all the irreligious vituperation they can wangle from it and the eternal verity of Kant’s considerable ethic.
May the Categorical Imperative vanquish hate unto the last grain of sand into which blood, innocent or guilty, may soak.