Islam is not a religion of peace

[Warren Stupidity]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why Western liberals need to speak up -- and why Islam needs a reformation now

...
For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple argument in response to such acts of terrorism. My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them. Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur’an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace.

For expressing the idea that Islamic violence is rooted not in social, economic, or political conditions—or even in theological error—but rather in the foundational texts of Islam itself, I have been denounced as a bigot and an “Islamophobe.” I have been silenced, shunned, and shamed. In effect, I have been deemed to be a heretic, not just by Muslims—for whom I am already an apostate—but by some Western liberals as well, whose multicultural sensibilities are offended by such “insensitive” pronouncements.
...
Now, when I assert that Islam is not a religion of peace I do not mean that Islamic belief makes Muslims naturally violent. This is manifestly not the case: there are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/04/islam_is_not_a_religion_of_peace_ayaan_hirsi_ali/

[trotsky]

1. I don't think there is any "religion of peace."

Is there a single religion that doesn't at least have some violence and bloodshed in its history? A true "religion of peace" would never have that.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. I dunno. That new church in Indiana,

The Church of the Serrated Leaf sure seems to have peace on its agenda. As well as roach clips.

[Aerows]

14. I don't even

smoke pot, and that seems like a church I'd join.

[F4lconF16]

4. Yup.

I don't think it can be singled out to just be Islam. Christianity and Judaism have had their horrors as well. Often worse, I'd say. Pretty much any belief system that involves the supernatural (not that it would be a "belief" system otherwise) will eventually produce extremists. There is no limit to what can be motivated as faith-based belief naturally has an armor against moderation.

Edit: articles like these are what I would call Islamophobic, kinda. When you single out a particular religion over any others despite evidence that they all cause violence, you are attacking more the people than the belief system. That isn't to say the article is wrong, necessarily--just that it calls out one religion specifically, and helps to incite more hatred against an already hated population (though there are hunks of the article I disagree with). It ignores all the rest of the shit that other religions do as well. I have the same problem with Bill Maher's stuff at times: it's not that he's wrong, it's that he seems to take special delight in attacking Islam at times.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I see your point about this article being Islamophobic, but

I also agree with the article in some respects. It is true that all religions have violence and hatred for the "other" in their holy books. The difference to me is that other religions have moved past that to a point. Christians and Jews, at least the ones that I am aware of, no longer stone and behead sinners or non-believers. Although it is uncomfortable to say things against God, it is not a death sentence. Islam has held very tightly to the old ways and literal interpretations, and in that way, they are more barbaric. This does not mean that all the Muslims are barbaric or strictly adhering to Sharia law, because many are not. But even our fundamentalist Christians and Jews are not taking all the words of the Old Testament to heart.

I think that we are really comparing fundamentalists in all religions, and the Muslims is showing themselves to be less evolved. That is what I get out of the article.

[F4lconF16]

7. I would point to organizations like the KKK and other

Heavily religious organizations as counter-evidence. I also think that if they could get away with it in this country, groups like the WBC would happily execute gays. I think the only reason they don't is for fear of consequences--give them their own country, and the horrors would unfold.

That said, I think you make good points, and I do agree with them. To some extent, I think Islam is also a much younger religion and is still maturing at this point. Christianity and others have realized it is much easier to control people by coupling the religious belief to political and economic ideas, rather than by direct brutality. I think eventually we will see Islam reach more of a point like modern Christianity, as there were certainly points in the past where Christianity was more directly violent and controlling.

Either way, any systems that allow for this crap are pretty screwed up. I'd just argue that Islam seems to be doing it best at the moment, rather than it being inherently more violent (though I really need to read the entire Koran, as I still have only read part of it, so take all this with a grain of salt. Just my observations. Religion isn't my priority at the moment.)

[Warren Stupidity]

10. She is quite clear why she is singling out Islam

and it is not because other religions are "religions of peace" it is because right now Islam has a huge problem with religious violence.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. And I would agree with the author that statements like that stifle the discussion.

I don't dismiss those Muslims who have found a message of peace within the doctrine, though it baffles me how that can be so. But when it can be clearly demonstrated that subscribers to a certain doctrine are carrying out acts of terror worldwide, I think it serves the world's interest to criticize and condemn at least that interpretation of the doctrine. Drowning out the discussion with cries of "Islamophobe!" don't serve to reform anything and we will be witnessing these acts of terror and continuous outbreaks of holy wars without relief in the foreseeable future. It's time to have the discussion.

[jeff47]

3. You mean just like Christianity and Judaism and every other major religion?

What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam

And there is a call to violence in the sacred texts of Christianity, and Judaism, and every other religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. The gospels don't make any explicit calls for violence.

However one also has to claim that the gospels obsolete everything in the torah, which claim is real difficult to substantiate unambiguously.

The torah on the other hand is the holy text of a tribal god who is routinely bloodthirsty.

So yes I agree that calls for violence are found in other religions as well, which does not refute the claim that islam is not a religion of peace. Ali does not state a position in this article regarding christianity or judaism.

[jeff47]

8. Except the article does not exist in a vacuum.

Implicit in the declaration of "Islam is not a religion of peace" is the claim that other religions are. Otherwise there would be no reason to discuss the "peacefulness" of a religion - if they're all violent, then Islam wouldn't stand out.

Violence and bigotry do not know any national borders, religious edicts or racial identities. They exist everywhere. Pointing to Islam and saying "BAD!!" is an exercise only meant to increase bigotry and violence.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. "Implicit in the declaration of "Islam is not a religion of peace" is the claim that other religion

are".

no that is not implicit. That is an argument you are making for Ali and as such it is a strawman argument.

[jeff47]

18. Then why say "of peace"?

If there really is no religion "of peace", why bother adding those two words?

But it's a great way to push "kill the Muslims!".

[Warren Stupidity]

19. because she is asserting that islam is not a religion of peace.

That would be difficult to do without using the two words "of peace".

She is not pushing "kill muslims", you are, again as a strawman. Have fun with that.

[jeff47]

20. Seriously, try reading. It can be fun.

What is the point of "of peace" when no other religion meets that criteria? We don't bother saying "Islam is a religion with clergy" because that's common to all religions.

She is not pushing "kill muslims"

Well, what's the logical way of dealing with a violent religion that opposes you? They are not "of peace", so they're going to harm you, whether or not you are peaceful towards them.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Because she is arguing explicitly against the assertion that Islam is a religion "of peace".

If she took your suggestion her article would be titled "Islam is not a religion".

" Seriously, try reading. It can be fun."

Seriously, try making sense and try making arguments that actually address points made, not points you imagine are being made.

"They are not "of peace"" - you, in typical fashion, are conflating Islam with "muslims", one is an ideology, the other are people who follow, to any extent, that ideology. She explicitly states that she is not claiming in any sense that all muslims are violent. She is claiming that the religious ideology of Islam promotes violence.

[jeff47]

27. Once again, I'm talking about the implications, not the literal content

I really don't understand why you are having so much difficulty moving beyond the literal content of the article. Other than you must really be vested in the article.

She explicitly states that she is not claiming in any sense that all muslims are violent. She is claiming that the religious ideology of Islam promotes violence.

Then she's lying in the first sentence or lying in the second.

Pick one.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Once again you have invented an argument not made, declared it "the implications"

and proceeded to attack that strawman.

first and second sentences from my excerpt:

1. For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple argument in response to such acts of terrorism.
2. My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them.

Well she is simply stating a fact in (1). You have yet to make the case that (2) is a lie if she is not claiming all muslims are violent. You have instead made unsubstantiated assertions that this is implied, and refused to elaborate other than to toss insults.

Nor have you bothered to address this statement of hers, which explicitly refutes your claims:

For more than thirteen years now, I have been making a simple argument in response to such acts of terrorism. My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them.

Have a nice day attacking your invented arguments and tossing insults at any who object.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. What the fuck?

"Religion of peace" isn't her phrase. She's simply co-opted it from religious apologists to refute their claims.

Jesus...

[LiberalAndProud]

26. You say "try reading"

and I'm increasingly convinced that you didn't bother to read the linked article. It's well written and well argued. I recommend a quick scan through.

[deucemagnet]

32. The term "religion of peace" comes from the etymology of the word "Islam" itself,

and is supposedly a founding precept of the religion.

Arabic words consist mostly of triliteral roots reflected over ten measures. The root sin-lam-mim (corresponding to s-l-m in English) is the triliteral root for "peace". The first measure verbal noun (or masdar) "salaam" = "peace". "Islam" is the fourth-measure verbal noun of the same triliteral root.

I'm sure onager will be along to correct my increasingly poor recollection of Arabic grammar, but that's the gist of it.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. No, it refutes the claim that others have made that Islam *is* a religion of peace.

[jeff47]

17. And as I said above, that claim is only important if other religions are religions of peace.

Otherwise, we'd just say "religion" and drop the "of peace" off the end. It's superfluous if none of them are.

But attacking the "of peace" claim is great for stoking anti-Islamic bigotry.

[skepticscott]

21. Sorry, but no

The explicit claim that Islam IS a religion of peace has been made and can be legitimately refuted, regardless of whether that claim has been made about any other religions or not, or even whether the general notion of a "religion of peace" seems silly on its face (it isn't, btw).

[jeff47]

28. Except there's no point in singling it out other than to inflame. (nt)

[skepticscott]

31. If proponents of Islam choose to single it out

by claiming that IT is a religion of peace (as they have), then it is every bit as legitimate to refute that claim. And there is every reason not to defer to those who would react to having their feelings hurt by the truth with murderous violence.

[beam me up scottie]

25. The author's criticism of islam has nothing to do with comparisons to other religions.

The statement "Islam is not a religion of peace" is countering the original "Islam is a religion of peace" claim that started after 9/11.

This isn't a christian exhibiting intolerance towards muslims, this is an ex-muslim criticizing islam.

[jeff47]

29. And why make that distinction if it doesn't apply to any religion?

To be somewhat hyperbolic, "This is the assault rifle of peace". "Here's the 155mm artillery of peace". And so on.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Because she's countering the original phrase.

She doesn't agree that "Islam is a religion of peace" so she's arguing against it.

Kind of hard to refute it without referencing the original.

[Trajan]

33. Hyperbole, projected

You keep dragging in the other religions as if they are part of her assertion ... they are not, so why not stop trying to introduce them? ...

Islam and it's adherents refer to their theology as a 'Religion of Peace' ... her assertion is a refutation of that claim, and says nothing of Christianity or Judaism ...

I think they are ALL plum loco, but that is for another thread ...

[LostOne4Ever]

34. If A then Not B does not imply if Not A then B

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Saying if it is my house then it is not at the bottom of the ocean does not imply that if it is not my house then it is at the bottom of the ocean.

Similarly saying if Islam then not a religion of peace does not imply that if not Islam then religion of peace.[/font]

[dangin]

13. Islam is the youngest...

And most immature of the Abrahamic faiths. With a tremendous amount of followers lacking education.

Just like Christianity back in the day. Or African christianity today.

Judaism has survived Rome, and the SS. Most modern Jews are models of how the religious should behave. Of course even they have fundies.

The other two still need to grow up, no doubt about it.

I really think the crazy Christians are going to get more violent over the next decade or two though.

I'm an atheist. Life is simpler that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. So by that theory we would have to wait another 100 years or so

to get Islam to the point where via fundamental theological reformation it could reject and replace its ancient concepts and embrace modernity, which is a long time to wait for the violence to subside.

[Lordquinton]

24. youngest by only a couple hundred years

Judaism is older by several thousand, and the next two came about on each others heels. It's actually not even the youngest, that falls to mormons, with only a hundred years or so.

[dangin]

36. My Yarmulke is Clear.

I'm a Hollywood type. So I'm a ScientoloJew. We're the new super faith.

We don't have to wait 100 years. The past is not predictive in anyway because of science (technology J Curve) and the environment.

[Cartoonist]

16. Ali's point of view

She speaks of Islam because that is what she knows. I can criticize Christianity because that is what I know. I am limited in my criticism of other faiths because I am not as well versed in them. I can only react to what I see.