Violence is not a choice but a necessary outcome of suppression of thought

Submitted by abhi (United States), May 31, 2009 at 14:18

I agree with B. N. Gururaj in all his observations. I would like to add something to his argument. Gururaj says that both communism and Islam "...believe in violence to spread their ideologies."

Indeed the world has seen a lot of violence in the name of Islam and communism. But I think violence is not a matter of choice. It is a deterministic outcome of the suppression of thought -- when free thought is suppressed, institutionalized violence would occur.

Often times, Muslim are obligated to defend things not because of their objective merit but of their mere association with Islam. Israel is universally bad for all Muslims. Every action of prophet is universally good. Every word in Quran is unchallengeable. Every infidel is committing a sin. The list can go on and on. As I said in my other letters, when you must defend something at all costs, suppression of free thought occurs and violence becomes the cheapest method to defend it.

The exact same phenomenon occured in both Islamic societies and communism. Both these groups forgot that for the right thought to congeal, all thoughts --even the wrong ones-- must flow. Once this simple idea penetrates into every Muslim mind, our planet will become a happy place.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".