Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom from fear of violence.
It's tranquility and harmony, and a critical component to happiness… and Islam my friends,
is precisely not that… this is, Islam is a Religion of Peace – Debunked.
Okay, I might have been a bit facetious in my intro, but I nevertheless stand by the
sentiment of what I said – Islam is not a religion of peace, and in this video, I
want to predominately explain why.
However, for the purpose of clarity, I want to first put this assertion in a syllogistic
form: Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom from fear of violence.
Islam acts according to and in seek of, peace.
Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.
In my opinion, when someone employs this argument the first thing to do is to identify exactly
how they're defining the word "peace".
The reason being is that there are two versions of this argument; the first is one in which
the proponent is sincerely asserting that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially,
and the second is one in which the proponent is periodically using an Islamic definition
of the word "peace".
Hence, this is why it's important to get them to define "peace" from the outset.
To debunk the second version first, because, you know, screw logic, it's important that
we first understand what exactly Islam means within the Islamic world.
The word "Islam" is derived from the Arabic word "salaam", a word literally meaning
"peace", and Islam as a religious practice refers to a person submitting herself or himself
to the will of Allah in order to seek eternal peace and tranquility.
Or to put it more bluntly, in the Islamic world, Islam is the definition of peace, and
therefore Islam is, by definition, a religion of peace.
Now if this isn't an obvious example of Circular Reasoning, I don't know what is…
Defining Islam as peace and then asserting that Islam is peaceful is as circular as defining
Nazism as love and then asserting that Nazism is loving… not only is this confusing, it's
deceitful!
What's more is that when the proponents of this argument use the colloquial definition
of the word "peace" within their first and third premises, but use the Islamic definition
of the word "peace" for their second premise, they're actually committing a classic Equivocation
Fallacy.
By interchanging between two different definitions of "peace" throughout their premises,
their argument is incoherent and therefore invalid.
But what about those who assert that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially?
You know, the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Zeba Khan?
How exactly have these people come to the conclusion that Islam is indeed a religion
of peace?
Well, to begin, while they recognize that countless atrocities have been committed in
the name of Islam, they nevertheless maintain that these acts are the result of fanatics,
extremists and militants taking Islamic teaching out of context.
But to raise an immediate objection, this claim is simply false.
Flat out, demonstrably, false.
As I demonstrated in my video about Islamophobia, the Quran and Hadith possess countless violent
verses that instruct Muslims, and moderate Muslims do indeed endorse and commit many
reprehensible atrocities with explicit reference to Islamic teaching.
What's more is that they do incessantly claim jurisdiction over the experience of
others, and so they are therefore not peaceful.
To name but a few examples, a poll of over 38,000 Muslims from over 39 different countries
found that: 60% of moderate Muslims believe that a wife should obey her husband; 75% believe
that it is necessary to believe in Allah to be a moral person; 40% want the death penalty
for those who leave Islam; and, 60% want Sharia law to be the official law of their country.
What's more is that even 61% of "moderate" British Muslims believe that homosexuals should
be punished…
So, as Sam Harris says, "the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism
is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent.
The problem isn't fundamentalism.
[…] The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism, are the fundamentals of Islam."
To hammer home this point, Harris often uses the example of Jainism as an actual religion
of peace, as its central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings… the
more extreme a Jainist becomes, the less we need to worry about them.
But so far as I am aware, the same cannot be said for any other religion, and especially
not for Islam.
To quote Harris again – and yes, Harris is going to feature in a lot of my videos
because he is in my opinion way ahead of his time, "the problem is that Islam isn't
a religion of peace, and the so-called extremists are seeking to implement what is arguably
the most honest reading of the faith's actual doctrine."
A second prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present, is that of contextualization.
For example, to paraphrase Nawaz, "Muhammad and the history of Islam must not be judged
by the standards of civilization that we, after an accumulation of thousands of years
have arrived at.
Islamic history must be judged by the standards of its time".
But this is simply nonsense – and here's why…
Islam has always uniquely claimed that its teachings are the final and unalterable revelation
from the almighty, and that by extension its edicts are absolutely final!
Therefore, because Muhammad practiced and Islam endorses and encourages elderly men
to take young girls as wives, this rule is final.
For a Muslim to now contextualize this edict and practice is to reject that Muhammad's
example and revelation is final.
In fact, it's worth pointing out that in Saudi Arabia there isn't an age restriction
for marriage whatsoever… and of course, the reason for this is explicitly Islamic…
What's more is that even if Islam didn't claim to be the final and unalterable word
of the creator of the universe, we still can and should judge its historical acts despite
its context.
Hell, future generations will most certainly look back at our actions today and judge us…
and they should!
A third prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present is the assertion
that Christianity is not a religion of peace either – often by referring to the Crusades
etc.
Now of course, this is true – Christianity is definitely not a religion of peace, but
to bring this up is simply a Red Herring – it's a distraction and a redundant use of energy.
It's the equivalent of someone saying in a debate about Hitler's atrocities that
Stalin was worse… it's irrelevant, and a because of this it can be dismissed without
serious consideration.
And finally, a small point I'd like to make before I recap is the fact that yes, pretty
much any religion, or any ideology for that matter, can indeed be practiced peacefully
– but this doesn't mean that the religion or ideology is peaceful itself.
To be a peaceful Muslim you need a very peculiar interpretation of the Islam indeed; you must
reject the vast majority of its teachings and pick a mix the peaceful verses… you
know, just like most modern Christians.
So, to recap, the second variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace
is flawed because; It commits a Circular Reasoning Fallacy, and; It commits an Equivocation Fallacy.
And the first variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace is flawed because;
Moderate Muslims do promote and commit atrocities in the name is Islam (not just fanatics);
Contextualization is irrelevant, and; Some, but not all proponents of this argument, commit
a Red Herring Fallacy.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and instead of leaving you with an overwhelming
powerful argument to consider, I'm instead going to leave you with a quote from Douglas
Murry: "The fact is that Islam is many things… many many things – but to say it's a religion
of peace is nonsense; it's to ignore reality; it's to ignore very difficult, but necessary
facts; not paradigms, but facts!
To say that Islam is a religion of peace is to say something based entirely on hope; it's
to elevate a hope into truth, and I hope as you all know, history teaches us that's
a very bad thing to do."
No comments:
Post a Comment