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.”