Howdy, Funnyjunk. I’m no MuahahaOfLore or Vladi, but I hope you can appreciate my content anyway.
So, doing some research on the violence of Islam, I found this article on the matter from Dose: “Is Islam Inherently Violent?” dose(dot)com/articles/is-islam-inherently-violent/
Reading through the article, it’s obviously shameless and biased completely to the “No” response. Drifting away for a moment- that’s one of my pet peeves: Topics or articles which are posed as a question but which really are one way or the other. Like, just come out and say what you’re supposed to say. Suspense isn’t going to make me read your article off the bat, the only reason I clicked was because I was searching anyway…
...But I digress. The goal here, for me today, is to systematically break down the arguments made by Dose. For those of you unaware, Dose is a media institution just like any other nowadays which is geared mostly toward the far-left. This is done under a Huffington Post sort-of guise; whereby I mean that they, such as in this article, pose things as questions, rather than direct answers in an attempt to seem unbiased when, in actuality, they’re one way or the other.
Context: The article was written in the wake of the Westminster Bridge Incident, wherein an Islamic terrorist, Khalid Masood a British-raised Pakistani, drove a bus at high speeds onto the bridge; which killed five and injured over 50.
The format here will consist of one of two things, 1) Me quoting something from the article and providing a response. Those 2 steps. 2) The other format will simply be observational pieces on the writing of the article.
With that, on with the show!
Statement: “Islam was born into a violent context. The Koran was written in the 7th century in the Arabian Peninsula during a time of war. The prophet Muhammad and his early followers had to fight constantly for survival in a brutal desert environment where various tribes were competing for resources. In other words, the first Muslims were a scrappy, persecuted crew in a dog-eat-dog world and this experience almost definitely influenced the way they wrote the holy texts that later became Islamic scripture.”
Response: This statement isn’t false so much as it is exaggerated. When people discuss Islam, they oftentimes dismiss the fact that Muhammad was overly violent for his time and performed extremely unjustified things, specifically for someone considered a holy and all-benevolent man. He ordered- and participated in- caravan raids, conquered a peaceful oasis (Fadak), attempted the annihilation of specific Jewish sects in the Arabian Peninsula, and performed many more offensives. It’s often portrayed that Muhammad was either in the right, or was facing otherwise insurmountable odds in which he was forced into killing, looting, and Islamizing. Instead, the expeditions of the Rashidun Caliphate and of Muhammad himself were nothing short of overly violent warmongering on his part and of the Believers of Makkah. William Montgomery Watt, a Scottish historian, noted in his novel “Khaybar War” on the matter of the Battle of Khaybar wherein the Banu Nadir, a Jewish sect living in Khaybar, had not offended Muhammad on purpose but had, instead, banded together to protect himself. The Jews noted the mistreatment of their own people by Muhammad; in which they cited how some of their own had been thrown out of the city of Medina and additionally to protect their belongings and lives. This and many others are only a few of the distinct crimes that Muhammad and his followers committed.
Statement: “Of course, just because medieval Islamic scripture decrees certain things doesn’t mean that contemporary Muslims do them. The vast majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are peaceful people.”
Response: Complete ********. If this is a matter of interpretation, but it this way: If someone you know wouldn’t outright go out and rape somebody but condones the institution of rape, you wouldn’t call them sound of mind, yes? This is, of course, an extreme example, but the idea of a radical minority is completely unfounded. Entirely. It strives to ignore the fact that many Muslims are, in fact, supportive of Islam’s oppressive ideologies, and instead boasts that Westernized “peaceful” Muslims are the majority.
First, the obvious. The fact that Islam is no matter of Islam being a ‘tiny minority radicalized’ is visible in our (unfortunately…) everyday lives. The Refugee Crisis. Isn’t it a bit odd that ever since Europe began allowing more Muslims into the continent, there are suddenly more terrorist attacks? Suddenly there are more unfair tolerance laws and protection solely for Muslims? Take the example of a refugee jumping on a Belgian flag shortly after the events of the Belgian bombing while shouting “Palestine!”. Take for example the countless bombings, stabbings, rapes, devalue of our Western moral and authoritative character. It’s not simply coincidence; and while it’s a minority that may act on it, it’s not a vast majority that condemn their actions.
Furthermore, the full truth. Here’s the numerical fact of the matter taken by The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and unbiased NGO based from Washington D.C....
...Of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world (23% roughly, give or take), this many support the institution of Sharia Law and its full induction:
- Malaysia: 86%
- Pakistan: 84%
- Bangladesh: 82%
- Iraq: 91%
- Egypt: 83%
- Indonesia: 72%
- Niger: 82%
- Afghanistan 99%
This many support the crime of adultery to deserve stoning: (Cheating is bad, guys, I agree, I’ve been cheated on before...but stoning someone to death?)
- Pakistan: 89%
- Afghanistan: 85%
- Palestine: 84%
- Egypt: 81%
- Malaysia: 60%
- Jordan: 67%
This many support death as the penalty for the leaving of Islam:
- Egypt: 86%
- Jordan: 82%
- Lebanon: 46%
- Iraq: 42%
- Malaysia: 62%
- Pakistan: 72%
According to Ben Shapiro in his TruthRevolt video “The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority”, Ben Shapiro amounts the number of radical Muslims to roughly 680,030,000. Over 43% of Muslims, and that’s counting both those in the Middle East and the Western World.
That is in no way tiny, and although, yes, the minority, that isn’t the “vast majority of Muslims” being peaceful.
Statement: “Indeed, Islam itself is based on peaceful values… There shall be no coercion in matters of faith,” says the 2nd sura, for example. The Koran also encourages its followers time and again to be kind, generous and loving to each other. “Compete with each other in doing good,” says one verse. “Allah is with those who are of service to others,” says another.”
Response: This is part of the hypocrisy that I hate of these articles. You cannot claim that something was born out of violence and defense, but not admit that it’s based on those violent values. Even if it’s for the defensive; it’s still violent. Yet people take the position that it’s based on peaceful values solely, and ignore the history in an attempt to create a facade for it. A facade which promotes only opinion and bias on the matter.
One of my favorite quotes to use on this matter from the Qur’an is (From Sahih International Qur’an)- “The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy.” [49:10] Now, this seems like it would be a positive off-the-bat, but the key here is in the first two words: “The believers…”. Here’s why:
Yes, Islam is a connecting religion and, even I would wager, a peaceful one depending on interpretation (although look to Sharia Law or the denominations and it contradicts even that). When two Sunni Muslims are together, it’s very likely that they’ll find brotherhood between one another. But, a Muslim and a Christian? A Muslim and a Jew? The only use they have to the Caliphate or to the Islamic State is to be tax monkeys; means to an end. Yes, Muhammad protected them under the guise of “People of the book”, but this, again, was only to promote Jizya. To the polytheists, other montheists, and pagans, this is even a worse fate; for Hindus, Zoroastrians, or those that do not follow Islam. Although they’re certainly extremists, this is why there has been such oppression under the ISIS on Druze and Kurds in Syria and the Middle East.
Islam is peaceful among Muslims; and even then, not by much.
Statement: “Christianity was the age that Islam is now about 1300 years ago. Remember what Christianity was doing 1300 years ago? Gearing up to savage the Western world with the systematic rape-pillage-and-murder campaign known as The Crusades — that’s what.”
Response: Okay, a few things here, and I’m just using this first part as a primary point to diverge and essentially “end” discussion on Islam and either defend Christianity/Judaism and/or ignore the rest since it’s tu quoque nonsense.
First: I have no idea who the **** did the math here. If it’s a mistype or a grammatical error? 1300 years ago, Christianity was 700 years old. I assume they mean 1300 CE/AD then? If so, that should be 700 years ago. They’re trying to make a comparison that I just don’t see. That said, I could be reading into this completely wrong, and if so, feel free to correct me since my brain could just not be working fully on this statement I suppose.
Furthermore, I’m not going to defend Christianity for the Crusades, alright? The Crusades were not only a failure and a series of blunders, but much of it was a bit of a sight for sore eyes and reflected the corruption of the Papacy as simply another feudal means for the Pope to command Catholicism (the only major denomination in the West at that point) to his will. Especially the Fourth Crusade which, in my mind, hindered Christianity even more in the Renaissance/Late Middle Ages. The Crusades, in my mind, should act as a reminder for Christians to behave better than they can be; and to be reminded of what they’re capable of doing.
But yeah. This has nothing to do with Islam. At all. People forget that Tu Quoque is actually recognized as a complete fallacy in an argument. For those unaware, Tu Quoque means- “Group A does X (A bad thing)->But Group B does Y (A bad thing)->So because of that, Group A doing X doesn’t matter/is okay/ignore it”. The Soviets did this all the time during the Cold War, and it’s extremely recognizable in their “...And you are lynching Negroes” propaganda (It’s quite simple, worth the research for future debates I advise).
Bottom line: Christianity/Judaism also being violent doesn’t mean Islam being violent is okay or justified and, in fact, has nothing to do with the accusation: “Islam is violent”. In fact, it changes the subject altogether.
Statement: “But don’t think Christianity has since grown up and stopped mass murdering people since then. The Holocaust, after all, happened in Europe — one of the most Christian and supposedly enlightened places in the world — a mere 70 years ago.”
Response: So, Nazis are Christians, but ISIS isn’t Muslim, right? Got it.
This is quite possibly some of the dumbest **** I’ve ever read. If you did, at any point, agree with these people, I can only hope it’s at this point you took back any respect you had for their argument.
Saying that Nazis were Christian is like saying the KKK is full of blacks. Let’s give some history here- This is blatantly false. Most Nazis heads were atheists, such as Josef Goebbels, Martin Bormann, and many more. Others were, well, something “different”. By this, I mean, relatively screw-loose. Their position allowed them to pursue whatever avenue they desired and, so, they did. Heinrich Himmler was an occultist who desired the unnatural black magic of the unholy. Alfred Rosenberg, Leader for Foreign Policy Office, was a declared “Neo-Pagan”, specifically worshiping Germanic Pagan gods and beliefs. Ludwig Mueller, a theologian, promoted the German Christian Movement; rejecting the Old Testament, and instead shaping the religion to fit the narrative as a fight against Jews.
I will not off and claim that every single Nazi was anti-religion and anti-Christian. In fact, I’m sure there were some that genuinely promoted religious attitudes, accepted the bridging of Judaic and Christian backgrounds (though likely trying to cover it up or excuse it in some way), and remaining pious. In fact, most of Germany at the time was majority Christian as Protestants.
However, the claim that the Holocaust was a religiously motivated attempt on the part of Christians is foolish at best. If anything, staunch Christians would be more likely to assist their Jewish brethren, as seen through the efforts of countless religious protests on the part of Archbishop Josef Frings, and- especially- Clemens von Galen.
Statement: “Radical Christians have committed contemptible crimes more recently, too. Look at the dozens of Christians who have murdered abortion doctors or bombed abortion clinics, for example. Most of those killers believed they were following Christian doctrine the same way a suicide bomber from Libya or Pakistan believes he’s acting in accordance with Islam.”
Response: The following is mostly opinion: I cannot nor I will not deny the bombings or attacks on behalf of the Pro-Life Movement. There are many, and in fact you can find plenty on ProChoice’s website. Although they’re biased, looking into many individual cases will give you about the same exact story, though I suspect plus or minus some details.
However, it’s the principle that I disagree with here. Abortion is a matter of perspective, I admit, but based on our current knowledge, the fetus is a human being. By the 5th week, the hands and eyes have begun to develop; hell on the 3rd week the damn heart has begun to beat. It is a human being. It will be a human being if it survives, there’s no doubt about that. Thus, it is murder.
There is no doubt in my mind that the extremist actions of these terrorists is messed up. However, I will not accept that a person bombing an abortion clinic is directly applicable to bombing a subway. Or stabbing random college students. Violently protesting the perceived murder of a potential human being is not the same as killing someone because they pray different or eat pork.
Statement: “So are we right to be wary of Islam? Yes, but no more so than all of the Abrahamic faiths, all of which are rooted in scripture that at times condones violence.”
Response: The key difference between Islam and its Abrahamic cousins? Evolution.
If there’s one thing that separates Christianity and Judaism from Islam or any other slightly related faith like Zoroastrianism is the fact that Christianity and Judaism have evolved and behave differently from Islam. In Christian majority Western countries or in Jewish Israel, culture and religion have become different. They’re associated, sure; very closely in fact. A tattoo is taboo or seen as ‘lesser’ in a Western country because, 1) It’s just tacky and seen as a sign of rebellion, but 2) the Old Testament denounces tattoos. Hell, it orders death, even. But we don’t kill those who get tattoos or wear two mixed fabrics and we don’t forcefully circumcise if someone isn’t.
But in Muslim majority Middle Eastern, African, or Oceanic countries, culture and religion are one in the same. Religion is a way of life; religion dominates your ideals and how you behave. You are stoned because you cheat on your husband; you’re not believed because you don’t have 4 witnesses at a rape trial; you’re beheaded because you didn’t pray toward the Kaaba; you’re shunned because you ate pork. That is Islam. That is the majority Middle-Eastern way of life.
An example of Islam being Westernized can easily be seen in Turkey. Of course, they’re a ********* but their distance to Europe as well as its history near the beginning of the 20th Century in the 2nd Constitutional Era and with the Young Turks trying to modernize took on a Western belief. From the Pew Research Study? Over 23% were confused on the matter of Sharia interpretation, and from that ONLY 12% supported Sharia as the law of the land. As a result, Turkey has far fewer bombings, far fewer beheadings, and many more people can enjoy vacations there; though, again, it is a political and judicial nightmare even still.
Conclusion & TL;DR: I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, I have many Muslim friends. To answer the assumption I’m sure many of you had about them, yes, they are Westernized. Half of them probably haven’t even picked up a Qur’an since they went to a mosque three years ago. The other half have, but don’t care, understand, or follow its teachings.
Islam is a violent religion. That is fact. Simply because the Torah, the Bible, or any other holy book says some additionally flawed and violent matters does not negate that fact or even lessen it. Muslim extremism and terrorism is on the rise week by week, and the more we choose to ignore it, the more we allow it to run rampant. It’s articles like these which support Islam’s backwardness and prevent it from moving forward. Working as a collective and as a group, we can convince or urge the newer generation to push for a reexamination of Islam’s teachings to, at best, develop it into a modern religion.