Is Islam a religion of peace?

[Rombomb]

I'm looking for honest feedback (i.e. criticism), so that I can improve this essay (by fixing the flaws).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Islam a religion of peace?

This question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — has recently been hotly debated [1], and it’s an interesting question because the controversy that has surfaced around it exposes some really interesting things about the differences between the philosophies of Islam and the West. But before I get into details, I’d like to point out that there are some things that we should keep in mind that are crucial to understanding this issue. I’ll summarize them below.

The first crucial part of this question is what the term Islam is referring to. Is it referring to Islam as it was 1,400 years ago in the Quran and the Hadith and in history? Or is it referring to Islam as it exists today in civil law and politics in Islam-dominated countries and Islam-minority countries? Or is it referring to Islam as it exists today in Muslim's minds? Or is it referring to a combination of these?

The second crucial part of this question is what constitutes peace. In order to figure out whether or not an idea or action is peaceful, we need to have a standard by which we differentiate between pro-peace and anti-peace. And we have to agree on that standard, otherwise we will disagree about which ideas and actions are pro-peace versus which one’s are anti-peace.

The third crucial part of this question is the context in which it was asked, because knowing the context of the question allows us to have insight into the other two parts of the question. So let’s consider some context. Why did this question popup into the minds of so many people around the world? Well, it’s because so many people in the West are asking themselves why there are so many Muslims who want to commit suicide and kill non-Muslims (infidels) in the name of their religion, while there are also so many Muslims that aren’t willing to commit terrorism or sympathize with terrorists. And why are they asking this? It’s because these sets of Muslims, who I'll call extremists and moderates, both claim to be following the core principles of their religion, while each of them are claiming that the other group is misinterpreting the Quran.

So what are their positions? The extremists are claiming that Islam is a religion of war, and that they must defend their religion from anybody who they perceive is attacking it, by waging war on the attackers — this is known as jihad [2]. In contrast, the moderates are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that each Muslim must defend his faith of Allah from doubt, and to struggle against his own evil desires (evil according to Islam) — this too is also known as jihad [3].

Now the people asking this question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — are non-Muslims looking at Islam from the outside in. And they are watching the extremist Muslims and the moderate Muslims answering this question in rival ways, both claiming to have the truth on their side. So who is right?

Before I address that, I’d like to address the standard by which we should judge ideas and actions as pro-peace versus anti-peace.


The standard of judgement: pro-peace or anti-peace?

In order to shed some light on this issue, let’s consider some things we already know. One of the most important inventions of the Western world is the philosophical doctrine known as liberalism.

Liberalism holds that people are created equal, and thus should be treated equally under the law. It says that individuals should have rights that should be protected, by the state, from being infringed upon by other individuals and by the state itself. Two crucial concepts within liberalism are freedom and reason — without these, liberalism is impossible.

Freedom is about individuals being able to do whatever they want, short of infringing on the rights of other individuals. This allows each individual the freedom necessary to pursue his own happiness the way he sees fit.

Reason is about individuals making their own judgements, instead of just believing things on the authority of other people, like the head of the state or religious clerics. Without reason, how could a person pursue his own happiness? Believing things on authority, say about what is a good life, is not going to help him figure out what is best for him. Nobody knows my interests besides me, so if I were to make life decisions on the authority of other people, then I’d be making my life decisions without taking into account my own interests! That’s a recipe for disaster!

I should note that freedom and reason are interconnected, in the sense that you cannot have one without the other. Without freedom, a person cannot make his own choices, in other words, he can't exercise his faculty of reason. And it goes the other direction too: Without reason, one would be believing things on the authority of other people, not making his own judgements, and so while he may have physical freedom, he is effectively mentally enslaved.

So what constitutes peace? If a person infringes on the freedom of another individual, then that’s anti-peace. Let's consider some examples. Murder infringes on the victim’s freedom to live. Theft infringes on the victim’s freedom to do what he wants with his private property. This applies to nations too. If a nation initiates war on another nation, that infringes on that nation’s sovereignty. So peace is about individuals respecting the autonomy of other individuals and nations respecting the autonomy of other nations.

One important thing I should clarify is that peace requires the use of physical force in self-defense from those who initiate force. As an example, if an armed intruder broke into your home running towards you with a knife, while your children are sleeping upstairs, it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your children, by meeting force with force. And if the aggressor succeeded at committing murder, then our government will put him in jail, which is a use of force against the aggressor in order to protect the rest of society from his anti-peaceful actions. Analogously, if a nation initiates war on another nation, the aggressor nation’s force must be met with force. So self-defense is pro-peace, in the sense that the victim is trying to restore peace after he had already been forcefully/involuntarily dragged into a war against their will.

So an idea or action that is pro-peace is one that respects freedom and reason. And an idea or action that is anti-peace is one that doesn’t respect freedom and reason.

An interesting thing to note here is that this question — Is Islam a religion of peace? — arose in people’s minds with most people already having a pretty good understanding of the difference between pro-peace and anti-peace. Most people asking this question already know that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an act of war (anti-peace), not an act of self-defense (pro-peace).

Now that I’ve established a standard for differentiating pro-peace from anti-peace, I’ll discuss some common positions people take on the question — Is Islam a religion of peace?


A common position taken by left-leaning Westerners

One common position that Westerners take on this issue is that Islam is a religion like all other religions, and people should have the right to practice whatever religion they like as long as it doesn’t encroach on matters of the state — this is what is meant by ‘separation of church and state.’ And since they recognize religions as not in conflict with the laws of their state, they assume that this must hold true for Islam too, since it too is a religion. And since they see Muslims within their communities living out their lives peacefully, they think that the Islam these Muslims are adhering to must be peaceful. And so they conclude that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they are asked why there are so many terrorist Muslims, they blame it on the harsh conditions that those Muslims are living in within their countries. But this position has a few flaws.

One flaw is that many of the terrorist Muslims were born and raised in Europe where they have access to lots of welfare programs. So it doesn’t make sense to blame terrorism on harsh conditions of poor countries when many of those terrorist Muslims don’t live in those conditions. For the Muslims living in the West, the Islam that they are adhering to is producing (anti-peaceful) extremists who are committing martyrdom-suicide-bombings in their misguided attempt to get closer to Allah and go to heaven.

A second flaw in this position is that it falsely assumes that Islam is not in conflict with matters of the state, because it assumes that Islam is like the other religions Westerns are familiar with. But Islam is not the same as those other religions in one very crucial way which makes it very unique — it's the only religion that has a political dimension. It's the only religion that is also a political ideology. It instructs Muslims how to operate a society. It gives laws about what should and shouldn’t be allowed by the state. And it instructs Muslims how to respond to dissenters. So this means that Islam is in conflict with matters of the state. In other words, Islam does conflict with the Western tradition of ‘separation of church and state’. Now, if Muslims abolished Islam’s political dimension, then this would solve it's problem of conflicting with the tradition of ‘separation of church and state’. In other words, if Islam reforms such that it no longer has a political component, then the new Islam will not have the flaw that the old Islam did.

A third flaw in this position is related to how it addresses the issue of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism tries to deal with the conflicts between people of different cultures living within the same nation. I think the issue arose from racism, and from our attempt to try to fix it. In response to this, some people think that in order to not be racist, one must judge all races, and cultures, as equal. But this is a mistake. Cultures are not equal. Cultures are sets of ideas, and ideas are not equal — for example, pro-peace ideas are better than anti-peace ideas. Races on the other hand, are equal, in the sense that all people, no matter what race, have the same uniquely human quality, which is universal intelligence, in other words, the faculty of reason. So in this sense, all individuals are born equal, because they have the same faculty of reason.[4] And all individuals (well after birth) are not equal, in the sense that some of them have better ideas, and act better, than compared to others — note that actions are consequences of ideas, so judging actions means judging ideas.

So, if you judge a person on his ideas, in other words, by merit, then you are not being racist. In contrast, if you judge a person based on which race, or culture, or tribe, or religion he’s from, then you are not judging by merit, and instead you are being racist. So it doesn’t make sense to judge a person by his race, like it doesn't make sense to judge a race. Races don’t have ideas, and it’s only the ideas that can be judged. Analogously, a person’s race doesn’t determine what ideas are in his mind. In contrast, judging a person by his ideas makes sense, and judging cultures, religions, and ideologies, which are all sets of ideas, makes sense too. This means that judging all cultures and religions as equal is ridiculous. It’s moral agnosticism, and all it does is help pave the way for evil people to commit their anti-peaceful actions by pressuring good (pro-peace) people to avoid judging anti-peaceful ideas and actions. So moral agnosticism is on the side of anti-peace.

On a related note, a person should not be judged by his past ideas and actions, and instead he should be judged by his current ideas and actions. As an example, it doesn’t make sense to judge me by a mistake I made 10 years ago if I’ve already corrected that mistake since then. Analogously, a set of ideas like a culture, a religion, or an ideology, should not be judged by it’s past ideas and the actions of it’s adherents who died long ago, and instead it should be judged by it's current ideas and actions. As an example, in the Bible it says that a women should be stoned to death if she is found to not be a virgin on the night of her first marriage, yet no Christians today administer the death penalty for that — so Christianity has evolved and shouldn’t be judged by this idea that has already been abolished. So, just like individuals evolve over time, so do cultures, religions, and ideologies evolve over time.


A common position taken by almost all moderate Muslims

The position that almost all moderate Muslims take on this issue is that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the so-called aggressive parts of the Quran are being taken out of context, and misinterpreted, by extremist Muslims. When confronted with questions about the aggression against non-Muslims, they defend the Quran by saying that there is context that is being ignored — they say that it was in self-defense. But this is false. The founder of the religion initiated over 60 military campaigns against neighbor nations, every time as the aggressors, never in self-defense. Within the life time of the founder of the religion, the Islamic empire grew to a size comparable to the largest empires in history. Muslims were created by involuntary conversion (anti-peace), not by persuasion (pro-peace). These people are ignoring history.

When confronted with questions about the aggression on Muslim wives by their husbands, they defend it by saying that Islam improved the treatment of women as compared to before Islam in the 7th century in the deserts of Arabia. The problem here is that the treatment of women hasn’t improve since then. The laws of Islam, i.e. Sharia law, are being applied in some countries even today, 1,400 years after the improvement of women’s treatment. So women in these nations are still being treated as second class citizens — they can’t vote, can’t drive, can't say decline sex (which means rape), can’t initiate divorce, don’t get equal inheritance, don’t get equal custody rights, and a husband is still allowed to beat his wife if she doesn't submit to his will. Demanding submission under threat of violence is not peace. It is war. And this is sanctioned by Islam. And in the nations where Islam’s political dimension is put into action, then these inequalities are also being sanctioned by the state. I should note also, that even in the USA, Sharia law is encroaching in our family courts, in favor of the anti-liberalism of Islam. Increasingly, family courts are denying Muslim women their individual rights in favor of Sharia law, which denies them equality.[x] So it doesn’t make sense to say that Islam improved the treatment of women, when the very same Islam is also being used to stop improving the treatment of women.

When confronted with the issue of reform, like the way Christianity reformed centuries ago, most moderate Muslims say that they need to reform by going back to the core principles of Islam. This is interesting because to reform means to change from a worse position to a better position, and that’s what happened with the Christian reformation, but these Muslims are saying something sort of opposite of that. They are saying that they need to change back to what Islam was when it first started 1,400 years ago. The thing is that that’s not a positive change (evolution). Instead it’s a negative change (devolution). They are assuming that Islam at it’s beginning was better than Islam today, that it was the greatest thing in the world. But this is ignoring history. And it’s also just making up stuff without any connection to reality.

One example of a made up claim about Islam’s core principles is education. It’s advocators claim that if people were better educated, for example women in Islam, then women would be fighting for their rights and things would be better. There are lots of flaws here. For one thing, the reasoning here is backwards. They want to blame women’s inequality on the fact that women aren’t educated enough to fight for their own rights, while ignoring the fact that Muslims are following Islamic laws that created these inequalities with respect to education. For a second flaw, when asked why they believe education is a core principle of Islam, they say that the Quran starts out by commanding Muslims to read -- the implication being that the command 'to read' is a command 'to educate oneself'. But they are ignoring that Islam's main component is the requirement of submission of one’s will to the will of Allah. It’s such a huge deal that the name of the religion (Islam) means submission. My point here is that submission of one’s will is antithetical to the tradition of reason. Submission means to take things on authority instead of making one’s own judgements. So submission is mental enslavement. So how could Islam be pro-education (pro-reason) and pro-submission (anti-reason) at the same time? It can't. That's a contradiction. It's impossible.

A positive point to note here is that most Muslims today don’t do this submission thing, and that’s great! Most Muslims are living out their lives as moral beings, using their own judgement without having to rely on the authority of Muslim clerics or defunct holy books.


My position

The position I take on this is that the fact that this question is being asked by so many people around the world is a testament to the fact that there is a problem. And what problem is that? It’s that Islam, as it exists today in the minds of Muslims around the world, is causing so much war and murder around the world.

In order for Islam to become a religion of peace, Muslims must admit that there is a problem within the religion that needs a solution. So the problem is that Islam is not yet a religion of peace, and the solution is to reform Islam such that it becomes a religion of peace.

So let's understand the problem in more detail. Being a religion of peace means existing in such a state where it's adherents don't see themselves as adversaries of modern societies, and where they don’t see liberalism conflicting with their religion. In contrast, the Quran and Hadith say that Islam and the West are adversaries -- and will be until the "day of judgement” (which means forever) [y] -- and that it is moral for believers to initiate violence on the unbelievers, which is in conflict with liberalism. And today's Sharia law includes all the intolerance and hate that the Quran and Hadith do, including things like punishing apostates of Islam with the death penalty [z], which again is in conflict with liberalism.

Now let's consider what it would mean for this problem to be solved. Imagine a future point in time where all Muslims see themselves as people, like non-Muslims -- where they don't divide up the world into categories of believers and unbelievers. Where all Muslims see no inherent conflict between themselves and the West and it's philosophy of liberalism — which includes the traditions of freedom, reason, individual rights, and equality under the law.

So how do we solve this problem? Well first of all, it's impossible to solve a problem that one denies even existing. So the people who say that Islam is a religion of peace are denying that a problem exists within Islam, and so it's impossible for them to solve it. And what’s worse is that by denying this, they pave the way for evil people to commit more evil, because they are pressuring good people to avoid judging the evil. And the more they deny the problem, the more power they give them. The more they deny the problem, the more power they give to the non-reformist Muslims who are trying to defend Islam from being criticized, from being reformed. So by taking this position that Islam is a religion of peace, instead of being part of the solution, you are choosing to be part of the problem.

What the moderates should be doing is standing up to the extremists by denouncing their anti-peaceful actions and their (anti-peaceful) hate speech. They should be condemning the Muslims that say that Jews are inhuman, that call for death to all unbelievers, and that call for Israel to be pushed into the sea. But instead of this, most Muslims spend their effort condemning people who insult their prophet, while saying absolutely nothing to condemn the evil committed by their fellow Muslims. So they are condemning pro-peaceful actions in the form of speech, while not condemning anti-peaceful actions in the form of terrorism and honor violence.

Where is their sense of morality? Well, their sense of morality is enshrined in the Quran -- at least for those Muslims who adhere to the Quran. It does not draw a line between pro-peace and anti-peace. Instead, the founder of the religion said that Muslims have the right to have their honor protected, i.e. to not be insulted/disrespected.[ii] This is part of their honor-based culture, which I talk about in detail in the 'honor violence' essay that I linked above. So basically it's says that insulting a Muslim is a sin, which can then be used as justification to punish the sinner, which many Muslims do by killing anyone who insults their prophet. Take note, that even this essay that you are reading right now can be perceived as an insult to their prophet, since I'm saying that his ideas and actions are evil. So by the laws of Islam, Muslims are justified in killing me as punishment for having insulted them. But what am I doing? I'm just telling the truth as I understand it. My actions are peaceful. I've hurt no one. If Muslims feel hurt by my words, they can change their feelings about the truth, or they can ignore my words altogether. When I speak the truth as I know it, this is not an act of war. When you kill me for speaking the truth as I know it, that is an act of war!

So by calling Islam a religion of peace, moderate Muslims are helping the extremists in their effort to defend Islam from criticism, against the West's effort to help Muslims reform Islam to become peaceful. Why would anything in Islam need to be reformed if there's nothing wrong with it? First you have to declare that something is wrong, then you can begin making it right!

What’s wrong is that Islam, as it exists today in the minds of Muslims around the world, sanctions anti-liberal traditions. It sanctions submission, which is antithetical to reason. It sanctions violent intolerance of dissenters, which is antithetical to freedom. And it sanctions inequality under the law.

And Muslims are not the only ones responsible here. For Islam to reform from within, reformist Muslims must be able to have a voice, to have an audience, without being silenced by the non-reformists. And in order for them to be able to do that, we in the West must stand up for the good. We must stand up to the non-reformists by joining the reformists in their effort to reform Islam. If we pressure pro-peaceful people from criticizing the evil within Islam, then we are helping the non-reformist Muslims from changing Islam for the better.

If we do not stand up for the good, then who will? If we do not stand up for the good, then the evil will prevail, and the good will be in danger of being wiped out.

———

[1] _Debate: Is Islam a religion of peace?_, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[2]

[3]

[4] _The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deutsch. http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[x] _American Family Law and Sharia-Compliant Marriages_, by Karen J. Lugo. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/det ... -marriages

[y]

[z]

_Honor Violence_, by me. http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/2014/02/ ... lence.html

[ii] “Truly your blood, your property, and your honor are inviolable.” Hadith, narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037.

[Xris]

I did try to read all of your thread but must admit I missed some of it. I have to object to your idea that us lefties have a rosie liberal view of Islam.Most lefties dislike religion and understand that it is a form of brainwashing.

Islam has a compulsion for jihad and that jihad is the problem for muslim and the infidel. You can not disguise or hide the fact that it compels muslims to retake the word for Allah. Mohamed designed this religion to attain world domination.

[Spectrum]

Your above did not take into account the following proximate root causes;

1. Islam per-se is inherently evil.
More than 10% of the verses in the Quran contain evil-laden elements.
'Evil' = that which has negative potentials to humanity.
Note;
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
The Quran works on the basis of immutability, thus cannot be changed or edited.
When Muslims has continual exposure to these evil laden verses, evils will naturally manifest as evident from this,

Even if we provide for a reasonable margin of error, the figures are still very significant and critical and this is traceable to the evil laden verses of the Quran. There is a whole load of evils that Islam tormented humanity in the past, present and will bring forth in the future.

2. The Hadiths
These contain worse elements of evil than the Quran

3 The Sira Rasul Allah and life examples of Muhammad
Believers 'idolized' Muhammad and take him as an exemplar and a perfect model of their life.
Much of Muhammad behaviors reflect that of a madman and psychopath.

4. Humans has very high inherent evil potentials.
When combined with the malignant texts of the above, it is a recipe for catastrophe disasters for humanity as has already happened and worst still in the future.

Islam is not a 'religion of peace.'
Humanity should wean off (gradually, not cold turkey, not banning) Islam ASAP and replace it with net positive spirituality to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential dilemma.

[Sy Borg]

Islam, like Christianity, has tenets both positive and negative, and love and peace are considered central. Ironically, many followers of the faith have complete contempt for those central tenets. Islam's track record suggests that the claim to being a religion of peace is disingenuous to the point of doublespeak, like Orwell's Ministry of Peace.

[Ami]

re. critique...

I'm a Muslim who lives in a Muslim dominated country. The difference between Muslims is as great as between Christians or atheists: the vast majority are ordinary people, some are traditional and backwards, some are very loving, some are thugs.

My main critique of your article is method: I don't see any Arabic at all in the article. The main ideas of Islam are generally Arabic terms. You have a lot of debate-style argument but nil content about Islam which presumably would help to answer a question about Islam. Maybe you want quotes from the Quran or Tafsir or some Islamic scholars or poets or just ordinary students of house wives? I'm wondering how well a question about Islam can be answered if there's very little about Islam brought up in the article...?

[Spectrum]

re. critique... I'm a Muslim who lives in a Muslim dominated country. The difference between Muslims is as great as between Christians or atheists: the vast majority are ordinary people, some are traditional and backwards, some are very loving, some are thugs.

The OP is about Islam not Muslims. I believe ninety percent of Muslims, as with Christians, non-theists and others are reasonably good human beings.

The language is not critical when dealing with any religion. Christianity did not start with English but rather latin and other ancient languages. Hinduism originally [even now] was/is written mainly in Sanskrit. Buddhism was also originally written in Sanskrit, Pali, etc. but later it was translated into many other languages.

What is important is the spiritual elements and content within a religion as human properties are generic to all.

[Theophane]

I think the "peace" part comes into play when everyone who offers resistance to Islam is either enslaved under it or dead. The word "jihad" might have originally meant something other than war-on-the-unbeliever. It might have meant som something more like "struggle." I am no Qu'ran scholar.

[Ami]

re. critique... I'm a Muslim who lives in a Muslim dominated country. The difference between Muslims is as great as between Christians or atheists: the vast majority are ordinary people, some are traditional and backwards, some are very loving, some are thugs.

The language is not critical when dealing with any religion. Christianity did not start with English but rather latin and other ancient languages. Hinduism originally [even now] was/is written mainly in Sanskrit. Buddhism was also originally written in Sanskrit, Pali, etc. but later it was translated into many other languages.

Ok. In that case then my critique is there is no English version of the Islamic terms: Zakat could be written: 'charity'. What I fear is that the OP hasn't so much looked at Islam at all... This can be felt a different way: how the OP uses "they" for Muslim people, as opposed to "we" or a neutral pronoun.

the Quran and Hadith say that Islam and the West are adversaries -- and will be until the "day of judgement” (which means forever)

Where? The idea of the West didn't exist to early Islam, so this must be an interpretive remark... Is it also true of Amish that their violent propensity is caused by rejecting modern Western society? As religions are generic, the problem of violence isn't likely to be found in Islam, Sufis are very compassionate Muslims: the difference is: there is Political religion, and there is Spiritual religion, neurologically this has to do with whether the sympathetic or the parasympathetic part of the brain is predominantly active, not which (Holy) books one tends to read. If I was the OP, I'd start by reading the Quran and spend a few hours talking with Muslim people for example on a Muslim chat forum if you don't know any personally.., or drop by a Mosque... because I'm a bit worried Islam isn't being fairly... or at all... represented in the article

[Spectrum]

the Quran and Hadith say that Islam and the West are adversaries -- and will be until the "day of judgement” (which means forever)

Appreciate if you could add a name to the above quote. (if cannot edit,do it in another post) It is not mine but that it follows mind made it look as if I have made the above statement.

Ok. In that case then my critique is there is no English version of the Islamic terms: Zakat could be written: 'charity'. What I fear is that the OP hasn't so much looked at Islam at all... This can be felt a different way: how the OP uses "they" for Muslim people, as opposed to "we" or a neutral pronoun.

This is not a good excuse. There are many terms in Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions where there is no exact English equivalent. E.g. the Buddhist's Dukkha = Sufferings in English.
This problem is typical of language and semantics that effect every sphere, not only religion.
If the term is critical, then it warrant a detailed explanation to get to the point.
If there are critical terms in Islam, there is a lot of room to provide detailed explanations and if useful people will do it.

To understand any religion generically, all one need is to study human nature, the philosophy of religion, the psychology of religion, the neuro-psychological of religion, the neuroscience of religion, philosophy-proper and one will be able to explain and understand all religion except for the specific nuances which are not critical.
I have done extensive research on all religions and I don't see there is anything special about Islam that warrant to pay particular attention to its terms.

Sufism is one mystical offshoot of Islam that has Hindu influence. The mainstream Muslims do not recognize Sufism as a part of Islam.

IMO, the OP topic is related to the controversial issue of "Is Islam and Religion of Peace" and I think on that basis, the points are relevant and can be enhanced by the points I mentioned.
Perhaps it would appropriate to qualify that 90% of Muslims as with other groups are reasonably good people and the majority of the verses are positive.
The critical issue here is, even the small % of negative evil laden verses are significant (note Pareto's) and has a negative impact to humanity. As such, there is a good reason to be very critical of this significant negative aspect within Islam.

Btw, the image in your signature is that of the Balinese Dance?

[Ami]

the Quran and Hadith say that Islam and the West are adversaries -- and will be until the "day of judgement” (which means forever)

Appreciate if you could add a name to the above quote. (if cannot edit,do it in another post) It is not mine but that it follows mind made it look as if I have made the above statement.

Done.

Ok. In that case then my critique is there is no English version of the Islamic terms: Zakat could be written: 'charity'. What I fear is that the OP hasn't so much looked at Islam at all... This can be felt a different way: how the OP uses "they" for Muslim people, as opposed to "we" or a neutral pronoun.

This is not a good excuse. There are many terms in Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions where there is no exact English equivalent. E.g. the Buddhist's Dukkha = Sufferings in English.
This problem is typical of language and semantics that effect every sphere, not only religion.
If the term is critical, then it warrant a detailed explanation to get to the point.
If there are critical terms in Islam, there is a lot of room to provide detailed explanations and if useful people will do it.

I'm not seeing this as worth arguing. It subjectivlely looked to me when I perused the article that the author is writing about Western perceptions of Islam, things I saw which led to that judgment arising included no quotes from the Quran or Tafsirs, no Arabic terms or English renderings because the main ideas of Islam are generally Arabic words and phrases, and using 'they' and 'them' to refer to Muslim people.

To understand any religion generically, all one need is to study human nature, the philosophy of religion, the psychology of religion, the neuro-psychological of religion, the neuroscience of religion, philosophy-proper and one will be able to explain and understand all religion except for the specific nuances which are not critical.
I have done extensive research on all religions and I don't see there is anything special about Islam that warrant to pay particular attention to its terms.

Oh. Ok.

Sufism is one mystical offshoot of Islam that has Hindu influence. The mainstream Muslims do not recognize Sufism as a part of Islam.

Maybe more accurate to say Arab muslims reject Sufism.

IMO, the OP topic is related to the controversial issue of "Is Islam and Religion of Peace" and I think on that basis, the points are relevant and can be enhanced by the points I mentioned.
Perhaps it would appropriate to qualify that 90% of Muslims as with other groups are reasonably good people and the majority of the verses are positive.
The critical issue here is, even the small % of negative evil laden verses are significant (note Pareto's) and has a negative impact to humanity. As such, there is a good reason to be very critical of this significant negative aspect within Islam.

Yes, Islam has not gone through the separation of Church and State. In many parts religion is the law: Sharia. The political and the spiritual are still tight in a way that is unfamiliar to Western experience. A better comparison would be: Is the American religious milieu together with the US and state governments a violent system? That would put the question of violent Islam in a radically different light!!

Btw, the image in your signature is that of the Balinese Dance?

They are Khmer; shot by Neil A. Meyerhoff. Here's Bali girls: http://s018.radikal.ru/i503/1403/48/29d3947f6898.jpg

[Schaps]

Is Islam a religion of peace? Without any doubt neither Islam nor many other religions are peaceful when considering their primary sacred texts. The primary texts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam in particular all contain references to savagery. There is one outstanding difference; Chrisitianity and Judaism have (for the most part) entirely renounced the savagery of their primary texts so that there are few instances of murder and genocide today in the name of Christianity or Judaism. This is not the case with Islam where daily atrocities and savagery are perpetrated in the name of Islam, it's God and it's prophet.

[Rombomb]

Ok. In that case then my critique is there is no English version of the Islamic terms: Zakat could be written: 'charity'. What I fear is that the OP hasn't so much looked at Islam at all... This can be felt a different way: how the OP uses "they" for Muslim people, as opposed to "we" or a neutral pronoun.

What would be a neutral pronoun?

I'm not seeing this as worth arguing. It subjectivlely looked to me when I perused the article that the author is writing about Western perceptions of Islam, things I saw which led to that judgment arising included no quotes from the Quran or Tafsirs,

Did you miss this quote from Hadith in the citation list? “Truly your blood, your property, and your honor are inviolable.” Hadith, narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037."

no Arabic terms or English renderings because the main ideas of Islam are generally Arabic words and phrases,

Did you miss the word 'jihad'? That's an arabic term.

Based on your criticism, I'm going to include the word "infidel" in parenthesis after "unbeliever".

and using 'they' and 'them' to refer to Muslim people.

I said "they" and "them" to refer to Muslims because I'm not a Muslim. Why do you think this is wrong? And what do you think I should have done instead?

[Ami]

What would be a neutral pronoun?

Be creative. Just something I've noticed over the years that 'us-and-them' language tends to be lopsided...

Did you miss this quote from Hadith in the citation list? “Truly your blood, your property, and your honor are inviolable.” Hadith, narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #1739, and Mosnad Ahmad, #2037."

One quote from an Islamic source in the whole article? I'd suggest as the title: "Popular Western conception of Islam".

Did you miss the word 'jihad'? That's an arabic term.

Based on your criticism, I'm going to include the word "infidel" in parenthesis after "unbeliever".

Then you just exasperate what I'm telling you: the word you are wanting is: kafir. Post this article on a few Islam discussion sites and see what happens. What's the worst? You get a radially different perspective and a load of info...

[Psychearth]

Islam is a religion FOR peace. As in, they promote peace and teach religious methods on how to obtain peace. I would say that is the main goal for most earthly religions. However, with Yin-Yang wisdom, we know that there will always be one opposite within its other (religious war [black circle] within the effort for peace [large white portion]).

[Rombomb]

Islam is a religion FOR peace. As in, they promote peace and teach religious methods on how to obtain peace.

Who is the "they" in that sentence?

And how do they promote peace?