Author Critiques Professor's Claim of Islam as Inherently Violent
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Author Assaf Carmel criticizes Professor Arie Eldad's assertion that Islam is inherently violent, arguing Eldad selectively uses facts and ignores historical complexity. Carmel refutes Eldad's claims about the Sunni-Shia conflict's death toll and duration, and points out that peace treaties are made with governments, not terrorist groups. He concludes Eldad's analysis is polemical, not historical, and hinders hope.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Assaf Carmel argues Professor Arie Eldad selectively uses facts to portray Islam as inherently violent.
- Carmel disputes Eldad's claims about the duration and death toll of the Sunni-Shia conflict.
- The author states that peace agreements are made with governments, not terrorist organizations.
- Carmel asserts that human interpreters, not the religion itself, shape the meaning of Islamic texts.
- The article criticizes Eldad's approach as polemical, hindering hope and perpetuating victimhood.
Professor Arie Eldad argues that Islam is an inherently violent force shaping history, citing examples from ISIS to the Iranian Revolution. However, Assaf Carmel contends that Eldad's selective use of facts, disregard for academic research, and historical complexity lead to a predetermined conclusion. Eldad points to the 1,300-year Sunni-Shia conflict, claiming tens of millions died. Carmel refutes this, stating the actual conflict began in the 16th century and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions, with additional casualties from massacres and famine.
Eldad asserts that even moderate interpretations of Islam are irrelevant because extremists dictate history, using the Russian and Iranian revolutions as examples. Carmel counters that Israel also has extremist minorities, like "Hilltop Youth," who dictate facts on the ground with tacit support. He notes that symbols like "Quds Day" and Shiite "holy war" are used to legitimize brutal conflicts, and ISIS's strategic failure stemmed from its extremism alienating the Sunni majority.
Carmel challenges Eldad's view of the conflict as religiously driven and irreconcilable, highlighting that peace agreements in the Middle East are made with governments, not terrorist organizations. He emphasizes that international law governs these agreements, and religious justifications are derived from moderate Quranic interpretations. Carmel concludes that Islam itself is neither inherently warlike nor peaceful, as its texts are interpreted by humans according to their interests, and Eldad's approach is polemical, not historical, blocking hope and perpetuating a victim mentality.