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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

are".

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

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!".

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.

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.

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.

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.

and proceeded to attack that strawman.

first and second sentences from my excerpt:

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

Jesus...

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ...

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.