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

MagicMarker · 14-08-2011 12:35AM #1

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 · 14-08-2011 12:40AM

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 · 14-08-2011 12:44AM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:55AM

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 I just think the debating format is obsolete and the only reason why it's still around is because of its utility as a means of spreading populist sophist bullsh1t.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 · 14-08-2011 12:27PM

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 · 14-08-2011 01:01PM

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 · 14-08-2011 01:15PM

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 · 14-08-2011 03:03PM

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 · 14-08-2011 03:41PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:03PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:24PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:26PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:34PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:41PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:45PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:53PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:58PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:59PM

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 · 14-08-2011 04:59PM

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 · 14-08-2011 05:18PM

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 · 14-08-2011 05:37PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:12PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:22PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:25PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:28PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:38PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:39PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:45PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:51PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:54PM

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 · 14-08-2011 06:59PM

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?

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

Comments