A Religion of Peace?

Breadcrumbs taste better than nothing;

Nothing tastes better than a big, juicy steak;

Therefore, breadcrumbs taste better than a big, juicy steak.

Ah, equivocation…

My informal introduction to this informal fallacy took place in geometry class as the teacher was droning on about lines and rays. I had doodled my way forward several chapters into the textbook, and then I stumbled upon the syllogism above. As I read it, my heart soared. Words, words! How mighty are words, I thought. Used adroitly, they can trap the truth, encapsulate it, and then twist, contort, and invert it. They can make falsehood truth, and truth falsehood. They have the power to prove the improvable. And I realized then that, if I learned to use this simple rhetorical sleight of hand, this verbal trick called equivocation, I too could wield that power. – Oh, equivocation, mighty equivocation. You sure seemed like a key to power back then. – If I remember correctly, equivocation’s unexpected appearance at that moment hit me like a swat from a storm trooper’s boot, and I popped out an evil prepubescent chuckle. Or was it the school lunch’s fault? Anyhow…

In reality, of course, the syllogism above does not prove the improvable. The carnivores among us will not be convinced by it that breadcrumbs are tastier than a slab of prime rib, and they will quickly point out the obvious, that a new meaning has been substituted in the second line for the word ‘nothing’, and that the conclusion is created by assuming the equality of the ‘nothing’ on the first line with the ‘nothing’ on the second line.

We could lay out the syllogism in simpler terms, like this: A is better than B; B is better than C; therefore, A is better than C. And when we lay it out that way, it becomes clear that the syllogism remains valid as long as “B” is really “B”. If, however, we insert something else for the second “B”, then it is no longer a valid argument. That pseudo-argument would then look like this: A is better than B; X is better than C; therefore, A is better than C. And any nitwit can see that this latter argument is a failure. The second statement says nothing in relationship to the first.

In the years that have passed since geometry class, I have learned a lot more about deception. (I wish I could say I learned a lot more about geometry, but that wouldn’t be true.) And I have learned that the one of the best ways to pass off a flawed argument (like the one above) is to add “spikes.” These “spikes” are needless details included in an argument for the purpose of diverting attention from the overall logical structure of the argument. Inserted skillfully, they can lull hearers into a stupor in which they fail to catch the logical error included in a premise. The use of spikes (and other rhetorical devices) can make simple arguments complex and cause perceptive people to play the part of patsies.

Now, let’s change topics. For just a moment, consider with me these two concepts: “Islam” and “peace.”

I suspect you have heard these two concepts used in relationship to each other. If you heard President Bush’s speeches following 9-11, or President Obama’s speeches during the past several years, you have. And they are often used in the context of proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace. Here are a couple of examples:

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace.”

President George W. Bush – September 17, 2001

"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace."
President Barack Obama – November 7, 2010

Yep, in the past decade, Islam has been routinely referred to as a ‘religion of peace’ by our public officials, usually in the aftermath of some horrific attack perpetrated by Islamic ‘extremists.” As we hear our governments make such statements, most of us say, “Huh?” We have witnessed the destruction of the twin towers, the beheadings of American citizens, the bombings at the Boston Marathon, and the murder yesterday in the streets of England; and we wonder how anyone could claim that the religion these people claim to follow is a “religion of peace.” And, yet, we are assured, Muslim authorities maintain that the Quran teaches the way of peace and Islam is a religion of peace.

So, what’s up? Is Islam a religion of peace or isn’t it? Are these terrorists just the lunatic fringe or aren’t they?

Today, I want to suggest to you that we are witnessing a reappearance of our old friend equivocation.

The word being equivocated upon is “peace.” The peace of Islam is not the ‘peace’ that most Westerners consider peace. The peace of Islam is universal submission to the will of Allah. It is a ‘peace’ that will occur once all people have submitted to him (that is, when all people have become Muslims); and, toward that end, toward that “peace,” violent means are acceptable. In other words, violent means utilized in the pursuit of ‘peace’ are justified in the proselytizing of nonbelievers (infidels).

There is not time or space here to address the violence encouraged by the Quran. I will simply observe that there are at least 109 identifiable war verses in it, one out of every 55 verses. As author Don Richardson notes, “These verses are scattered throughout Mohammed’s chapters like blood splatter at a crime scene.” These verses, he adds, “leave readers in no doubt – he [Mohammed] obviously intended his war verses to arouse Muslims to compel the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, even by violence if necessary.”

I was horrified by the violence in England, as I am sure you were too, but I was not surprised. Such events should serve as a wake-up call for us, as Westerners and, more importantly, as Christians. Islam is a religion of violence that demands submission to a despotic god and ushers its followers into the depths of hell. We must proclaim loudly and courageously that the way to true peace is found in Jesus Christ, not in Islam, and we must refuse to allow ourselves to be dulled into complacency by rhetorical sleights-of-hand.

Bottom line? The time has come for another crusade, a crusade of evangelization. Yes, the time has come for believers to rise up in mass and fight Islam with purposeful, focused evangelism. Believers must join together in strategic ways to enter and evangelize the Islamic world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must overcome evil with good. And we can, because we know that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Jesus Christ.

Could you be a missionary to the Islamic world today? In the future? I’ll bet you could. Sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with those who persecute you is the very best way to spread genuine peace.

“I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you.”

Matthew 5:44

-Christian Pilet