I understand religion has a specific forum, but I am reacting to a post here, in 'General Discussion', which claimed re:Brussels that "Islam is a religion of peace"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7705340
So, as the board rules mention that "Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.", without any animus towards Muslims, I wish to just simply state why it is wrong to claim that "Islam is a religion of peace", especially in context.
First, define Islam? It's impossible. (*)
- The texts are unreliable and contradictory. Muhammad's biographies and hadiths were written about two centuries after Muhammad. The Quran contradicts itself on key tenets of doctrine (what Adam was made of, how to deal with unbelievers, etc)
- the interpretation of the texts are contradictory: from peaceful Sufis to ISIS, from gay Muslim centers to the hanging of gays in the name of Islam.
Second, can Islam be decreed peaceful?
- part of the texts incite to violence: some Quran verses and hadiths
- the way a plurality of Muslims understand Islam is not peaceful: half of the world Muslims believe their religion calls them to stone adulterers. Can this be called peaceful?
Third, in the context of Brussels, I understand part of the reason people would want to make that claim: to shield innocent Muslims from people who would advocate a blanket indiscriminate backlash. But misleading sentences do more harm than good, especially when they appear to want to exonerate an ideology from its harmful consequences.
Because the motivation of the Brussels attackers IS Islam. Their ISIS brand of Islam (*).
Wrong diagnostics do not help to find solutions. And the context of a terror attack, rushing to issue a blanket statement that "Islam is peaceful" can come across as rather insensitive.
I cringed when I saw halfwit GW say just that just after 9/11.
Peace to all.