''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

MagicMarker

I came across this debate and it was not my intention to stay up past my bedtime but I found this to be one of the best debates I've watched, well worth a watch and the results are interesting. This is how a debate should be, introductions and then straight into a proper dialogue, finishing up with a good Q&A.

For the motion: Zeba Khan & Maajid Nawaz
Against the motion: Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6PUK4wmni4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l37YXBkpVlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FsGGqWV8Mo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpqQASZYlU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7izVIKg6ls8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms7fmPU0vf0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjesMMYFXB0

charlemont

I couldn't watch all of that but id be inclined to think Islam is a peaceful religion once its not hi jacked by fanatics, Iv a lot of Muslim neighbours and they are very nice people..

MagicMarker

charlemont wrote: »

I couldn't watch all of that but id be inclined to think Islam is a peaceful religion once its not hi jacked by fanatics, Iv a lot of Muslim neighbours and they are very nice people..

You should give it a try, the first 2 clips are the introductions so skip them if you want. Although Douglas Murray's introduction was very very good, his starts around 7.30 minutes in the 2nd clip, after the intros they get into a very good discussion imo.

Turtwig

I'll admit I didn't watch that video yet. I'll prolly watch it sometime. I just think the debating format is obsolete and the only reason why it's still around is because of its utility as a means of spreading populist sophist bullsh1t. Let's face it, the format is perfect for lying through your teeth as long as you dress it up cosmetically.

But my opinion of Islam is the same as that of Christianity. Definitely not religions of peace (literally anyway).

Jarndyce

charlemont wrote: »

I couldn't watch all of that but id be inclined to think Islam is a peaceful religion once its not hi jacked by fanatics, Iv a lot of Muslim neighbours and they are very nice people..

What has that got to do with anything?? Your phrase translates as follows: "There are many Muslims who are peaceful people". That is some poor reasoning. Just because they are peaceful it does not follow that the religion itself is peaceful. Morality, human decency, and the rule of law will prevent many Muslims from engaging fully with what is commanded by their religion. However, that says nothing as to the peacefulness or wickedness of the religion itself.

charlemont

Jarndyce wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?? Your phrase translates as follows: "There are many Muslims who are peaceful people". That is some poor reasoning. Just because they are peaceful it does not follow that the religion itself is peaceful. Morality, human decency, and the rule of law will prevent many Muslims from engaging fully with what is commanded by their religion. However, that says nothing as to the peacefulness or wickedness of the religion itself.

Ha, So the Quran is wicked and the bible isnt..Sure after Ramadan they will start to slaughter us, I better get a new lock for my door.:D

Did the bible command priests to abuse children or command Eamon De Valera to impose the church on us ?

Jarndyce

charlemont wrote: »

Ha, So the Quran is wicked and the bible isnt..Sure after Ramadan they will start to slaughter us, I better get a new lock for my door.:D

Did the bible command priests to abuse children or command Eamon De Valera to impose the church on us ?

Ok. It's now quite apparent that your comprehension skills are severely limited. Might I ask where in my post you found my expressed/implied approval of the Bible?

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Against the motion: Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray

Against the motion: Douglas Murray an anti-Islamic Hasbarist http://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdfhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdf

And an member of the shamelessly partizan NGO Monitor
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=2028

And a supporter of the EDL's methods apparently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3fsynNRIFg

and Ayaan Hirshi Ali who anti-Islamic terrorist/mass-murderer Breivik published an anti-Islamic (full) article from the brusselsjournal.com in his infamous manifesto proposing that she receive the Nobel Peace Prize

I think it would be a complete waste of time listening to these spiteful propogandists.

whydoc

This thread in the wrong forum, BTW: Islam=Selm=Peace ( I once thought islam doesn't mean peace and i was wrong ), so, whattever is said doesn't change anything.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Against the motion: Douglas Murray an anti-Islamic Hasbarist http://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdfhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdf

And an member of the shamelessly partizan NGO Monitor
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=2028

And a supporter of the EDL's methods apparently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3fsynNRIFg

and Ayaan Hirshi Ali who anti-Islamic terrorist/mass-murderer Breivik published an anti-Islamic (full) article from the brusselsjournal.com in his infamous manifesto proposing that she receive the Nobel Peace Prize

I think it would be a complete waste of time listening to these spiteful propogandists.

Anti-islamists arguing against the motion of ''islam is a religion of peace''? Well knock me over with a feather!

Oh, and some mass murderer mentions one of them in his mandate, she must be evil incarnate so!

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Anti-islamists arguing against the motion of ''islam is a religion of peace''? Well knock me over with a feather!

Oh, and some mass murderer mentions one of them in his mandate, she must be evil incarnate so!

So you'd expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from anti-Islamists?

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you'd expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from anti-Islamists?

Would you expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from muslims?

Considering you haven't watched it, how do you know the arguments aren't reasoned and rational?

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Would you expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from muslims?

Yes. Extremist Salafis or Wahabbis or other extremist sects/individuals no.

Wouldn't you?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Considering you haven't watched it, how do you know the arguments aren't reasoned and rational?

Because I am aware of the speakers and extremist, hysterical-fearmongering and incitement which are never reasoned or rational.

Now perhaps you could answer my previous question - would you expect to get a rational and reasoned argument from anti-Islamists on Islam?

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because I am aware of the speakers and extremist, hysterical-fearmongering and incitement which are never reasoned or rational.

Now perhaps you could answer my previous question - would you expect to get a rational and reasoned argument from anti-Islamists on Islam?

Depends, these two in particular? Yes. I'm basing this on the fact that I have watched it myself and can see for myself that the arguments are reasoned and rational.

chughes

Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims. It's all about power and influence. I'm sure every religion has people who are nice but the bottom line is, my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.

Some people can live with this, others have to kill for it. I don't believe Islam is a religion of peace. It hasn't reached that stage in it's evolution yet.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Depends, these two in particular? Yes. I'm basing this on the fact that I have watched it myself and can see for myself that the arguments are reasoned and rational.

Is it then fair to assume that you consider their arguments reasoned and rational because you agree with them for the most part?

If so, can we realistically rule out that your own position on Islam is irrational?

Brown Bomber

chughes wrote: »

Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims.

With respect I'd be highly surprised if you were well enough informed to make such a far-reaching statement on the intentions of countless current and past Islamic leaders.

All that left is a baseless generalisation.

I apologise if I am wrong and you are an Islamic scholar.

Pygmalion

whydoc wrote: »

This thread in the wrong forum, BTW: Islam=Selm=Peace ( I once thought islam doesn't mean peace and i was wrong ), so, whattever is said doesn't change anything.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but you realise that what word Islam is derived from has no bearing on the teachings of a religion or the practices of its followers, yeah?

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is it then fair to assume that you consider their arguments reasoned and rational because you agree with them for the most part?

Is it then fair to assume that you consider their arguments unreasonable and irrational because you disagree with them for the most part?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If so, can we realistically rule out that your own position on Islam is irrational?

If so, can we realistically rule out that your own position on Islam is irrational?

Ya see where I'm going with this? You're boring me already. Either watch the debate or don't, but don't come on here and tell me that the arguments used are unreasonable and irrational when you haven't even watched it yourself, because ironically, that's unreasonable and irrational.

chughes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With respect I'd be highly surprised if you were well enough informed to make such a far-reaching statement on the intentions of countless current and past Islamic leaders.

All that left is a baseless generalisation.

I apologise if I am wrong and you are an Islamic scholar.

I'm not an Islamic scholar but I'm long enough on this Earth to see what problems all religions have caused throughout their existance.

If Islam is so peaceful, why do women have to be covered almost completely when out in public ? Why is it impossible for non Muslims to openly practice their religions in certain Islamic countries ? Why does conversion from Islam to another religion carry the death penalty ? Why is it necessary to have fatwas ?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With respect I'd be highly surprised if you were well enough informed to make such a far-reaching statement on the intentions of countless current and past Islamic leaders.

All that left is a baseless generalisation.

I apologise if I am wrong and you are an Islamic scholar.

Are you a religious scholar? If not, then would you kindly stop expressing your opinion on this matter?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Extremist Salafis or Wahabbis or other extremist sects/individuals no.

Wouldn't you?

Can you explain who would be able to give a reasoned argument against Islam yet not be anti-Islamic?

How would one have a reasoned argument against Islam and not be anti-Islamic, that seems paradoxical since they have the reasoned argument at hand?

Or are you simply assuming that no reasoned argument against Islam exists in the first place, and thus everyone who does give such an argument must be unreasonable? :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

Are you a religious scholar? If not, then would you kindly stop expressing your opinion on this matter?

No, but I am not making any authorative statements on the history of leaders within Islam either. If I did with virtually zero knowledge of Islamic history it would be based on ignorance.

Brown Bomber

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you explain who would be able to give a reasoned argument against Islam yet not be anti-Islamic?

How would one have a reasoned argument against Islam and not be anti-Islamic, that seems paradoxical since they have the reasoned argument at hand?

Or are you simply assuming that no reasoned argument against Islam exists in the first place, and thus everyone who does give such an argument must be unreasonable? :rolleyes:

I am referring to the people involved being anti-Islamic not their arguments which are not mutually exclusive for obvious reasons. I would've thought that this would be self-evident.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, but I am not making any authorative statements on the history of leaders within Islam either. If I did with virtually zero knowledge of Islamic history it would be based on ignorance.

Right, so your position is that you don't know or is that the poster is wrong? If as you say, you're not a scholar how can you say authoritatively that the generalisation is a baseless one?

Standman

If any framework is to be constructed with an aim to be one of peace, then surely its guidelines should be explicitly and unambiguously laid out with that in mind. If Islam is truly a "religion of peace", then why is it so easy for so many people to use it's texts and teachings as justifications for violence and persecution?

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

Right, so your position is that you don't know or is that the poster is wrong? If as you say, you're not a scholar how can you say authoritatively that the generalisation is a baseless one?

Because it isn't supported by anything tangible other than being alive on the earth for a period of time. This simply doesn't qualify you to make the claim that "Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims." Or do you disagree?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because it isn't supported by anything tangible other than being alive on the earth for a period of time. This simply doesn't qualify you to make the claim that "Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims." Or do you disagree?

You didn't answer my question. Is your position that you don't know whether the statement is true or not. Or do you actually know the position to be wrong?

It isn't supported? How do you know it isn't supported are you an islamic scholar?

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

If any framework is to be constructed with an aim to be one of peace, then surely its guidelines should be explicitly and unambiguously laid out with that in mind. If Islam is truly a "religion of peace", then why is it so easy for so many people to use it's texts and teachings as justifications for violence and persecution?

Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

Uh, how did you get "just Islam" from that post.

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Is your position that you don't know whether the statement is true or not. Or do you actually know the position to be wrong?

I don't know if it's true. The statement made was such that only an expert on Islam could justifiably make - it implies a complete knowledge of every significant Muslim leader in history- Like I said this is why I didn't make any authorative statements.

Malty_T wrote: »

It isn't supported? How do you know it isn't supported are you an islamic scholar?

???

Because I read the unsupported statement. Didn't you?

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

Uh, how did you get "just Islam" from that post.

This part

If Islam is truly a "religion of peace", then why is it so easy for so many people to use it's texts and teachings as justifications for violence and persecution?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because I read the unsupported statement. Didn't you?

Really? Yes the statement was unsupported, but if an Islamic Scholar made a statement like that just because of their position you'd accept it? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's very poor form, no matter the person arguments from authority and appeals to authority are simply not a good way to communicate. Instead of attempt a character assassination of sorts, you could have simply asked the poster to elaborate on their position and back up their point with examples.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This part

So from "If Islam" you got that those two words mean "I the poster am also hereby excluding Christianity and Judaism from the same criticism"?

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This part

Talking about Islam on a thread about a debate about Islam, the nerve!

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

Really? Yes the statement was unsupported, but if an Islamic Scholar made a statement like that just because of their position you'd accept it? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's very poor form, no matter the person arguments from authority and appeals to authority are simply not a good way to communicate. Instead of attempt a character assassination of sorts, you could have simply asked the poster to elaborate on their position and back up their point with examples.

Accept? No. Respect. Yes. And to the poster who made the point, it's not that I don't respect your opinion.

And how many examples would suffice to abley demonstrate that "Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims"?

10's of thousands? As a guess I'd say that that's conservative.

You consider pointing out that a baseless accusation rooted in ignorance is a baseless accusation rooted in ignorance is somehow"character assasination"? I have no idea how...

Are we agreed that it was an apparent baseless accusation? If so, what are we arguing about?

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

Way to avoid answering the question!

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Way to avoid answering the question!

Okay, apologies. The answer is simple. These sacred texts are ancíent documents which are considered divinely inspired to it's adherents. The word of God should not be subject to the tinkering of man. This irreversible nature of the texts along with the ambiguous nature of the texts and moral relativism between now and then creates moral difficulties in today's world.

Brown Bomber

Malty_T wrote: »

So from "If Islam" you got that those two words mean "I the poster am also hereby excluding Christianity and Judaism from the same criticism"?

Well no. Which is why I asked two clarifying questions.

Dades

Focusing on one religion does not mean others aren't subject (or not) to the same flaws.

But this thread/debate is not about Christianity and Judaism, so let's stay on topic.

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, apologies. The answer is simple. These sacred texts are ancíent documents which are considered divinely inspired to it's adherents. The word of God should not be subject to the tinkering of man. This irreversible nature of the texts along with the ambiguous nature of the texts and moral relativism between now and then creates moral difficulties in today's world.

Which kind of supports my point which was if a religion is put forward as one of peace, then it's guidelines for the pursuit of said peace should be unambiguously and explicitly laid out.

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Which kind of supports my point which was if a religion is put forward as one of peace, then it's guidelines for the pursuit of said peace should be unambiguously and explicitly laid out.

And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful? Are you a man/woman of peace? If so, have you codified guidelines to prove this to others?

goose2005

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why just Islam? Why not Christianity and Judaism too? It's sacred texts can be equally bastardised to pursue an agenda.

Not really. The fact is, in Islam, pretty much any act is permissible if it furthers Islam and/or is committed against infidels. The conduct of Muhammad in his lifetime was monstrous even by the standards of the day, but everything was justified because Allah was his BFF.

Brown Bomber

goose2005 wrote: »

Not really. The fact is, in Islam, pretty much any act is permissible if it furthers Islam and/or is committed against infidels.

And this is another gross generalisation.

So I'll ask you which specific forms(s) of Islam are you referring to? Which acts specifically are you referring to? (The more extreme the better). Who is doing the permissing? And who do they represent?
----
EDIT
I'll give you an example: Al-Taqiyya.

It is generally accepted by Shias and generally rejected by Sunni sects. I use it because it is something that can be twisted to give a sinister impression wrongly.

In fact it was often mentioned by Breivik as a pivotal reason as to why Muslims can't be trusted.

In reality what it is is the permission for Muslims to conceal their faith when in immediate danger of their/or their families lives. This cannot be done if it involves taking the life of an innocent civilian, Muslim or otherwise.

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful? Are you a man/woman of peace? If so, have you codified guidelines to prove this to others?

You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is about a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

sponsoredwalk

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Against the motion: Douglas Murray an anti-Islamic Hasbarist http://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdfhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/storage/Aaronovich_Hasbara.pdf

And an member of the shamelessly partizan NGO Monitor
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?viewall=yes&id=2028

And a supporter of the EDL's methods apparently

Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

and Ayaan Hirshi Ali who anti-Islamic terrorist/mass-murderer Breivik published an anti-Islamic (full) article from the brusselsjournal.com in his infamous manifesto proposing that she receive the Nobel Peace Prize

Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think it would be a complete waste of time listening to these spiteful propogandists.

Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you'd expect to get a reasoned and rational argument on Islam from anti-Islamists?

Surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

chughes wrote:

Islam, like Christianity and all other religions, are usually led by people with non altruistic aims.

With respect I'd be highly surprised if you were well enough informed to make such a far-reaching statement on the intentions of countless current and past Islamic leaders.

All that left is a baseless generalisation.

I apologise if I am wrong and you are an Islamic scholar.

Why didn't you also mention Christianity? Why focus solely on Islam in your
response to a person who mentioned more than Islam in their sentence?
Coming from a person who goes off & chastises someone for doing the
exact same thing you did only 12 posts later I mean...

But surely you see the insanely obvious flaws with such an argument?

It really would take four essay's to go into how flawed such arguments
are, really... I just wonder though, do you genuinely not see the instant
flaws with such arguments? The fact that such flaws exist is highly
probable instantly simply by virtue of the hilariously ironic fact you go off
& criticize someone else for *apparently* doing the exact thing you did
only 12 posts previous. Surely something like that makes what I'm saying
at least probable?

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is about a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

Don't take this the wrong way but I suggest you reread the segment you quoted me on. It is specifically related to Islam and being/not being a religion of peace.

Brown Bomber

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why didn't you also mention Christianity?

Because as you can see yourself I said I would be highly surprised if he was familiar enough to make a statement of such magnitude on Islam. I would be far less surprised if he was familiar with Christian Church leaders and it therefore wasn't noteworthy. Simples.

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but I suggest you reread the segment you quoted me on. It is specifically related to Islam and being/not being a religion of peace.

You asked some irrelevant questions about me personally. If this thread was about "Is Standman a man of peace?" then they would be relevant and I would answer them if I so choose. Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

You asked some irrelevant questions about me personally. If this thread was about "Is Standman a man of peace?" then they would be relevant and I would answer them if I so choose. Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

I'm sorry, I'm confused now.

What do you mean by....' "Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm confused now.

What do you mean by....' "Coming in here and saying "Why should I have to prove anything?" '

It was part of an analogy to demonstrate the pointlessness of asking such questions like the one you asked earlier:

And why should the burden of proof be on Islam to prove that it's peaceful?

You don't seem to be interested in presenting any arguments as to why we should view Islam as a religion of peace, instead preferring strawman everyones position and spout a bit of rhetoric. Can't move for the straw in this thread.