Is Islam “A Religion of Peace”?

Funny there could even be a debate about that. It's pretty obvious, if one looks at actual facts, that Islam is far more belligerent and violent than peaceful. It certainly is highly intolerant, even of variations of itself. (1) In other words, if one employs the method of science and reason, and looks at the data, the evidence clearly shows at a minimum the “religion of peace” claim to be not well supported, to put it mildly. I'd go further and call that an absurd and mendacious propaganda slogan of Islamists themselves who wish at the very least to divert people's attention from what other Islamists are doing all over the world, or worse to sinisterly dupe the rest of us and lull us into complacency.

In numerous countries, Islamists impose an intolerant and repressive ideology by force and violence. Islamic regimes rule by force (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, etc.). As Islam got its start by the sword, and spread through conquest, so now Islamists seek to conquer new territories by violence (Mali, Nigeria) and impose more extreme versions of Islam in countries that are already dominated by that religion. It is significant that the flag of Saudi Arabia includes a sword. What is that supposed to symbolize? Peace? Name me a Muslim nation with a dove in its flag, or two hands shaking. There are none. Saudi Arabia is the site of the “two Holiest sites in Islam,” Mecca and Medina. Every Muslim is commanded to visit Mecca at least once (if they can)- this is called the Hajj. S.A. is the “guardian” of the symbolic fonts and touchstones of Islam.

Yes yes, the friendly-face propagandists insist “jihad means struggle.” I'm sure it does. It also means religious war- or nowadays, religious terrorism. Maybe someone should tell the people setting off bombs in public places every few days in Pakistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and now Syria too (sometimes so enthralled by death that they willingly blow themselves up along with their victims- maybe instead of calling their god “Allah” they should call it by its right name, Thanatos) that jihad actually is a benign method of self-improvement via inner struggle, not a call to murder and mayhem. Clearly, words can mean different things to different people.

But that doesn't represent Islam, or not all Muslims. Ok, where are the Muslim denunciations of Islamic terrorism? What we get are fatwas (“Holy” commands) calling for the murder of cartoonists and novelists from top Islamic religious bosses. (Salman Rushdie's Japanese translator was murdered, Dutch filmmaker Theodoor "Theo" van Gogh was butchered by knife in the street for the “crime” of making a movie about the horrid abuse of women by Muslims, and you can add your own countless examples here.)

We do hear how Muslims are “intimidated” by “hate speech.” Really? So where are the Christian terrorists murdering Muslims for saying something the Christians don't like? Where are the mobs attacking embassies over cartoons? How many public orders to murder authors has the Pope, say, issued?  It sounds a tad hypocritical. [But oh, their delicate sensibilities need protecting. A guy who threw a Koran in a toilet at a college in New York City was charged with “disorderly conduct as a hate crime,” a felony. Felony thought crime, that is. To express contempt or hatred for a religion that has political clout by throwing a book in a toilet is apparently banned, at least in NYC. We can't allow such “intimidation.” All I can say is, if someone is terrified by seeing a book in a toilet, they better dig themselves a big hole to hide in the rest of their lives. People say mean things sometimes. You wouldn't want your feelings hurt. (2)]

The late Christopher Hitchens was the most eloquent public figure who tried to arouse defenders of what are called liberal values- free speech, tolerance, human rights including equality of women to men, pluralism, free thought, and freedom to live one's life without interference from totalitarian oppressors (remember, these guys ban even music and art, force women to cover their faces, who they also ban from going outside their homes unless accompanied by a male relative, and much else that is intolerable to any normal human being)- against what he saw as a menace to “civilization.” I suppose those of a certain ideological bent would attack his argument as rank Western chauvinism. But is not the cutting off of hands, beheading reporters and hostages, and reducing women to the level of chattel beasts not barbarism? (And that's an extremely partial list of the barbaric crimes committed by these fanatics. Committed proudly- they like to boast about the horrors they inflict, even videoing themselves doing them and posting the evidence online.) (3)

Or if you insist on cultural relativism and say “it's just different types of civilization,” very well, the Wahhabi one is waging war on the “western” one. It is seeking to impose its anti-human values by not just force, but by terrorism. Right now, Islamic terrorists calling themselves “Boko Haram” are trying to impose by terrorism their demands on all Nigerians. Boko Haram means “Western education (or ideas) is forbidden.” Forbidden by who? By this band of terrorists. Forbidden to whom? To everyone else in Nigeria (and once they take over Nigeria, there will be more countries on their list). Forbidden how? By vicious violence, meted out without warning to whomever they choose to inflict it on.

And just what are “Western ideas”? The aforementioned basic human rights and freedoms I already enumerated, among others. Oh, I left out the right of women to learn how to read and write. That too is “forbidden.”

But I recognize that a billion people cannot all be branded terrorists, nor do I wish to. The truth is, the majority of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims. And it is Muslims who are most oppressed by Islam, especially females. I guess being able to oppress women is the compensation the men have for being repressed themselves by their religion.

Islam is a perfect example of how religion is an infectious mind disease. What is the purpose of demanding prayer five times a day? Mind control. Forcing boys to memorize the Koran? Indoctrination and brainwashing. [I don't speak as a partisan of any religion as I am an atheist.]

The U.S.' Saudi “allies” have chosen to bankroll the spreading of the most virulent form of this disease, Wahhabi Islam. This led directly to the 9/11 attacks and many others preceding and following it. The Pakistani military sees Islamic terrorists as useful cat's paws and cutouts for terrorist attacks on India.

There has to be an appropriate response to this serious situation. On one extreme are leftists and the most naïve pacifists whose ideology acts as a blindfold, preventing them from seeing what's in front of us all. On the other pole are people enraged by 9/11. They had a very strong reaction to the huge media propaganda campaign following that attack. [Too bad there has never been an honest accounting of the complicity of the CIA and FBI in those attacks. And remember how Bush had to be forced to even create an investigative committee? And how he and Cheney refused to testify under oath to it? Amazingly, that's all down the memory hole!] They paint with too broad a brush and see all Muslims as enemies. If civilization (there I go again, being chauvinistic) indeed has a billion enemies, we're in huge trouble.

A crusade a la the Roman Catholic invasions of the “Holy Lands” is not the answer. But naivete isn't either. You can't negotiate with unreasonable fanatics. And some force is unavoidable in dealing with them. But at the same time the main battle is ideological and psychological. Unfortunately “winning hearts and minds” is just a cynical euphemism for lame propaganda campaigns, cheap political tricks, and mendacious speeches by political con men. (Why does the name Barack Obama come to mind?)

A long ideological battle looms, and the U.S. and its allies don't seem to have a clue what to do about it.

I could give advice, but that will have to await another essay. (Besides, those in power don't take advice from me anyway, so what's the rush?)

A good start would be to stop supporting dictators and start promoting democracy. But “the West” has painted itself into a corner here. Since they supported for so long dictators who have successfully prevented the development of civic organizations and democratic consciousness in the countries they rule, the best-organized opposition (and thus most likely to win elections, as happened in Egypt with Mubarak's overthrow) are Islamists. Which of course the U.S. and its bloc do not want. But continuing to support dictatorships in the hope of suppressing a virulent and violent totalitarianism is proving risky- especially when one of those dictatorships (Saudi Arabia) is a source of the problem!

1) I refer of course to the mutual bombings and murders by Sunnis and Shiites of one another in several countries. And the two branches of Islam are fighting a proxy war in Syria. That civil war is not just a proxy war, but it is that as well as being a rebellion against the tyrant Assad. Iran and the Arab monarchies of the Arabian peninsula also compete for influence in Iraq, site of constant terrorism motivated in large part by this religious factionalism. The Saudis and their satellite oil sheikdoms are apparently pressing the U.S. in secret to take out Iran's nuclear program by any means necessary. Sure, Christianity in the past launched wars of conquest, fought sectarian wars between branches of itself (political conflicts masked as religious, which gave them extra fervor, as today between the Iran-Syria axis vs. the Arabian Peninsula one) and was violent and repressive. But that was centuries ago. All they do now is kill miscarrying pregnant women by denying them abortions, as just happened in Ireland. And support the occasional fascist death squad regime. But that's mainly Catholicism- and evangelical Protestantism, big backers of the former Guatemalan butcher Jose Efrain Rios Montt. [Actually that might make an interesting defense for Islam. Look at all the massive state terrorism, that killed millions over the past century, that the Roman Catholic Church aided and abetted.? That would be the "but they did it too" defense. But hey, I say mean things about the RCC too. I'm fair. And the Pope doesn't issue public calls for the murder of writers he doesn't like. So there is a difference. Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. It is better for tribute to be paid than not. And the RCC's preachings these days do not call for or promote violence. That obviously is a huge distinction from much of Islam.]

If Muslims hate each other to such a murderous degree, how are the rest of us supposed to see them? They are obviously a menace. You could ask the relatives of 200 dead Australian tourists murdered in the Bali resort bombing shortly after 9/11/01 about that, among other people.

By the way, quite a few Muslims hate Jews too. And that isn't because they care so much about Palestinian Arabs either. They would hate Jews anyway. [Which unfortunately is used as an excuse by Israel and its U.S. backers to continue to remorselessly, relentlessly dispossess the Palestinians of their homes and land and makes their lives miserable, with an eye to goading them to leave.]

2) This censorship of free speech and free expression is justified with the seemingly liberal demand that “people should respect other people's religion.” That is an example of rhetorical jui-jitsu, calling suppression of criticism or negative remarks “tolerance.” It is intolerance in the name of tolerance. But you have no right to demand that I genuflect before your religion. Personally I think that all religion is SHIT. Ignorant, superstitious, primitive idiocy. I reject the demand that I “respect” moronic, imbecilic “beliefs.” If someone “believes” in unicorns, or flying elephants, or “believes” that the moon is made out of green cheese, I would refuse to submit to a demand that I “respect” those beliefs, nor would anyone attempt to impose such a demand- or at least they'd lack the power to enforce it. The content of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions (each a successive knock-off of the preceding one) is as least as ludicrous. Forcing people to smile and nod respectfully at religious zealots in the name of “tolerance” is suppression of freedom of thought and expression. It is a hijacking of liberal values to enforce its opposite. If someone's “beliefs” are so obviously absurd that they can't withstand dissent from them or criticism or even mockery, maybe they need a more reality-based set of beliefs!

3) Hitchens was getting increasingly dogmatic in some ways in the last few years of his life. I fear he was going to end up sounding indistinguishable from the neocon bedfellows he was lying with in his later years. (He became a regular on panels and TV shows put on by such nests of reactionaries as the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, the Hudson Institute and the Claremont Institute. You can see videos of these sessions on youtube.) Lately he had taken to calling for war on Iran. So maybe it was a bittersweet blessing in disguise that he died before degenerating further. I prefer to remember him as intellectually sharp, morally acute, and witty. He was in danger of becoming a hectoring warmonger. We do need to resist the encroachment of barbarism, but starting major conventional wars is more likely to backfire, and drive even more Muslims into hateful fanaticism. There are better levers to use against Iran, and for that matter Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be dealt with more toughly, instead of being coddled. The West has the means to do so. The Saudis are just as much a hostage to the Western banking and investment system as Iran, in fact much more so. And they need to sell their oil at least as much as others need to buy it. As for Pakistan, it largely exists on U.S. largesse, especially since its corrupt ruling elite refuses to tax itself, engorging itself like leeches with undeserved wealth while their country falls apart. Yes, their nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the fanatics is a problem. If U.S. regimes, especially starting with Reagan, hadn't allied the U.S. with military Islamists starting with Zia ul-Haq, we'd be in a very different place now, probably. Once again the chronic refusal to actually ally with democrats is proving to be the opposite of “realism.” It is in fact stupidity. So we see that morality isn't just nice window-dressing. Morality is a fundamental part of our existence. It is part of the fabric of being. One ignores it at one's peril. This goes for nations too.

BONUS VIDEO: Yusef Islam (nee Cat Stevens) calls for the public immolation of Salman Rushdie.

(“Peace Train” indeed!)