What are your thoughts on this? Is it a religion of peace if we properly contextualize it?
I was watching this debate,
Toward the end Maajid Nawaz makes a comparison between Muhammad 1400 years ago and the founding fathers of the U.S.
The founding fathers were guilty of many evils. Treason, sex scandals and fraud. Yet, put in place a government and policies that resulted in the US turning out just fine. To use it as a parallel to Islam is insane. Quite hilarious.
The founding fathers looked to the bible for inspiration. They mostly agreed with this kind of thinking:
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
If we looked to them on a personal basis as Muslims do to Muhammad, we will surely follow their evils. If the point is that we are not to look at them but learn from them, well that is then a very good point. One that is certainly not being applied to Muhammad. I don't think Maajid properly grasped the point he insinuated. Namely, don't follow Muhammad. Nor any of the laws he pioneered to accommodate his evil.
There are so many things you cannot contextualize. Murdering thousands of Indians / raping a nine year old girl has been a gross evil / mortal sin among every sane thinking person from Adam and Eve up to today.
There are many evils that we 'claim' the Jews in the OT are guilty of. Atheists sites are full of them. But 99% of these arguments raised against them / God in the OT can be explained without contextualizing.
Saying we must contextualize the evils of Islam's origins and history is a major cop out. They must take ownership of their evils and agree to learn from and never repeat them.