[Lapido] Mark Durie: Time to consider why the ”˜religion of peace’ is so bloody

..The slogan ”˜Religion of Peace’ has been steadily promoted by Western leaders in response to terrorism: George Bush Jr and Jacques Chirac after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7, David Cameron after drummer Lee Rigby was beheaded and after British tourists were slaughtered in Tunisia, and François Hollande after the Charlie Hebdo killings.

After the beheading of 21 Copts on a Libyan beach, Barak Obama called upon the world to ‘continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam’.

So how did ”˜the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, or in the teachings of Muhammad?

Read it all

Posted in * Religion News & Commentary, Islam, Other Faiths

3 comments on “[Lapido] Mark Durie: Time to consider why the ”˜religion of peace’ is so bloody

  1. Pb says:

    As I understand it, Islam means peace in the form of submission. Islam has been at war with the west since the earliest days and warfare is a means of spreading the religion. But the narrative trumps reality in our time.

  2. Pb says:

    As I understand it, Islam means peace in the form of submission. Islam has been at war with the west since the earliest days and warfare is a means of spreading the religion. But the narrative trumps reality in our time.

  3. Vatican Watcher says:

    [i]Islam[/i] shares the same basic roots as [i]shalom[/i], SLM, with the vowels differing due to the differences between Hebrew and Arabic, connotation, and so on. [i]Islam[/i] as Pb notes is “peace through submission”, submission to God, and not just any old God, but /the/ God, Allah. If you submit to Allah by becoming a Muslim or a good little tax-paying dhimmi, you’ll have peace.

    I wrote the following awhile ago that bears repeating here:
    Time has shown again and again that Muslim communities, left to their own devices, will eventually breed at least a small fringe element, radicalized and intent on attacking Islam’s enemies. The majority, even if non-violent, will most likely do nothing and balk at the suggestion that they deal with the radicals in their midst. I read quotes soon after the recent attack in SoCal [San Bernardino] from [url=http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/08/some-muslims-pretty-irritated-at-being-asked-to-help-root-out-extremism/]two Muslim leaders who were insistent that it was unfair to expect them to inform upon radicals in their mosques[/url]. I don’t think that’s an isolated reaction. After all, we see it all the time when it comes to [RCC] homosexual clergy and their enablers who are all too willing to look the other way for whatever reason.