|← Similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism||The Bhagavad Gita →|
Robert Spencer and other people in the film argue that despite the fact that some other world leaders' claims that Islam is not a religion of violence and that those who perpetrate violence in Islam are just but Fanatics misinterpreting the tenets of the Islamic religion, Islam is indeed a religion of violence and therefore anyone claiming otherwise has been duped. On the other hand, the argument by the Serbian historian terming the rape of Bosnian ladies as being fictitious in order to help other people trapped in Islam cannot be ignored.
The problems associated with such arguments are that it will create animosity among different religions in the world and therefore create instability. Some people will view their religion as being superior to others and therefore those religions that will be overlooked may rise up to defend their religious ideologies and principles in order to be universally recognized. Spencer's argument that there can be a peaceful Muslim but never a peaceful Islam is in bad faith because it portrays Islam as religion which does not value peace but loves violence.
In this view, this argument is not in good faith because it portrays that there can be peace between Muslims but not where Islam conquers to establish itself. His arguments are therefore not only embarrassing but offensive to other people who may not be Muslims. Spencer's arguments and others leave the viewer wondering whether violence is actually built in the Moslem ideologies (Spencer 201). Such kinds of religious arguments are incite-full because they succeed through emotions to manipulate their audience and therefore directing them to drive their rage at a given community by implicitly urging them to violent action (Spencer 202).