| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
| Be it resolved: Islam is a religion of peace | |
| 2010-10-13 | |
| That was the motion of a fascinating, highly charged debate last Wednesday night at NYUs Skirball Hall sponsored by Intelligence Squared, whose series of topical debates with experts in the field are always timely, lively and thought-provoking. While the sentiment of the large audience at NYU was somewhere between liberal and confused going in - 41 percent favored the motion, 25 percent opposed and 34 percent were undecided, in an electronic tally taken at the outset - it seems clear that most of the undecideds came away swayed by the arguments of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the outspoken Muslim critic of how Islam is practiced, particularly in its treatment of women, and Douglas Murray, a journalist, author and student of Islam who managed to lighten some tense moments with his very British humor. After the 90-minute debate, the final tally found 55 percent of the audience opposed to the motion, 36 percent in favor and only 9 percent undecided. I recommend that you listen to the full debate on NPR or watch it on Bloomberg television this week. (Go to www.intelligencesquaredus.org for details)
On the Against side, Murray, a best-selling author and journalist who was raised Christian, says his research into the life of Mohammed "made me an atheist." Hirsi Ali escaped an arranged marriage in her native Somalia, settled in the Netherlands and served in the Dutch parliament. She received death threats for her public criticism of Islam and now is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. She travels under heavy security, and John Donvan, the ABC-TV reporter who serves as moderator for the series, noted that airport-style security was employed for this debate because of Hirsi Ali's situation - a sign of the times and metaphor for the evening. (Though he doesn't call attention to himself, Donvan is a key to the debate series' success, combining probing questions and a light touch to keep the proceedings moving. He said this debate was the "most spirited we've ever had.") All four panelists argued forcefully. And the topic, and points raised and countered, speak to the heart of the issue of whether Islamic militancy is motivated by politics or the religion itself. The For side insisted that the real Islam has been hijacked by a few militants who give the religion a bad name. They noted that the overwhelming majority of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are peace-loving citizens. The Anti side maintained that the source of Islamic militancy is to be found in the teachings of Mohammed and the Koran and that the leaders of the religion today are the radicals. "It's an absurd situation we're in," Douglas Murray noted, "where nothing that anyone does whilst being Muslim is any responsibility of Islam." | |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #14 I understand that the translation of peace and submission from Arabic are essentially the same. Nope. Peace = Salam, Submission = Islam. Now I don't read Arabic and since Arabic omits vowels it is not impossible that Islam and Salam are written the same. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-10-13 18:04 |
| #13 What I found fascinating was the change in attitude of the audience as a result of watching the debate. before: 41% agree/ 25% disagree/ 34% undecided after: 36% agree/ 55% disagree/ 9% undecided |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-10-13 16:33 |
| #12 I think most Rantburg readers have read enough about Islam and all pretty much agree. I understand that the translation of peace and submission from Arabic are essentially the same. if so I'd like to see people refer to the Religion of Submission from time to time. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-10-13 15:36 |
| #11 "It's an absurd situation we're in," Douglas Murray noted, "where nothing that anyone does whilst being Muslim is any responsibility of Islam." I don't know squat about Douglas Murray, but I couln't agree more with him here. This is a very relevant statement. |
| Posted by: Keenster 2010-10-13 14:59 |
| #10 The debate on what each religious group's holy book contains is pretty much irrelevant when clerics can pick a choose passages to influence (in a good way or bad) their congregants and established their brand Nope. Koran says clearly which passages are to be repealed when two of them conflict: the earlier one (that is the "peaceful" one). Because unlike the warlike passages in the Bible who apply only for certain place in time and space, the commandment to "fight the infidels until they submit and pay the Jizya" in Koran is permanent and unlimited in space. What you are saying is as absurd as pretending that Mein Kampf is pro-democracy and philosemitic it is just that bad "clerics" quote it the wrong way. |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-10-13 10:41 |
| #9 The debate on what each religious group’s holy book contains is pretty much irrelevant when clerics can pick a choose passages to influence (in a good way or bad) their congregants and established their brand. Bottom line: One should care less about what anyone's “holy book” says and more about how the follower acts upon it. In Islam there are far too many clerics including the Saudi Apartheid Islamic Republic that have disseminated hate against non-Muslims via the Muslim World League. Please go to these two sites: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&report=45 (Saudi hate literature study) http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/tar-heel-jihadist-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-murder.html (In the above are the Koranic passages that justified Mohammed Taheri to mow down student at NC State in 2006. Ironically, the 2nd edition of “Inspire” and Al-Qaeda on-line publication came out yesterday and asks Muslims to mow down US citizens in this fashion. Inspire is peppered with Korans verses too. |
| Posted by: Jack Salami 2010-10-13 10:16 |
| #8 wrong spelling of the word and needs a plural tense: "pieces". Fixed. |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-10-13 09:53 |
| #7 how to demuslimify its followers I'll settle for emulsify. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-10-13 09:05 |
| #6 I'll believe it when it starts behaving like a "religion of peace" and repudiates it That is a akin to asking the KKK to repudiate racism or the Nazis to repudiate antisemitism. The (Jewish) Bible is basically a history book nothing more. It says: "/Moses/Joshua/the Jews/ did this and that". Nowhere it tells that these actions were right or just, nowhere it tells that Moses or Joshua were faultless men whose example had to be followed, nowhere it tells that G.d could not modidfy its message once times would have changed and nowhere it tells that everything is in the Bible itself. Rabbinic Judaism was created precisely on the basis that the Bible is only part of G.d's message and that, for instance, allowed to say that women were no longer to be put to death by stoning no matter what is told in the Pentateuch. But Islam is based upon the precept that Muhammad is the last, in fact the only prophet as the teachings of both Christian and Jewish ones are distorted to match those of Muhammad. That God himself cannot change a single comma in it. That the solution for everything is to be found in Muhamad's sayings or what Muhammad said G.d had dictated to him. That no matter how repellent, depraved and immoral his actions Muhammad is to be praised and imitated in everything (including in how he dressed or how he cleaned himself). That he is to be the subject of a personality cult of Kim il Sungesque proportions (every Muslim having to tell "Peace and Blessings Upon Him" when mentionning him). Stop dreaming about Islam repudiating violence because that is impossible and start thinking about how to demuslimify its followers |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-10-13 08:12 |
| #5 What do you expect when 'institutions of higher learning' don't teach real history, but 'studies'? How did the religion spread from the sparsely populated Arab Peninsula to the reaches of the world? By the sword. What were the Crusades? A military response to the military conquest of the lands of the Middle East which were previously the domains of the Byzantine [Eastern Roman Empire] and the Sassanid Persians taken by the sword. Was this just an isolated incident? No, direct threats to Western civilization stretched from the Battle of Tours, 732 to the Battle of Vienna, 1683, nearly a thousand years of constant non-peace. The Spanish word for their experience is Reconquesta (710-1492), the re-conquest from the Islamic military seizure of their land. They're the perps not the victims, although the normal modus operandi is to portray all perps as the victims in today's bankrupt ruling class, particularly in academia which still worships the godless butchers of the 20th Century in various shades of socialism. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-10-13 08:08 |
| #4 Islam is a religion of peace. If you impertinent dogs dare to disagree; we'll fucking saw your heads off!!!! Have a nice day! Allah be praised. Fleas Pee Upon Him. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-10-13 04:03 |
| #3 Actually Canute was proving that the power of kings is nothing, he was making a point that kings were nothing compared to God. They always forget to tell the second half of that story. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2010-10-13 02:11 |
| #2 Seems that many years ago a certain King Canute also tried to force a differetnt unrelenting force of reality with a equally inane resolution. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-10-13 01:39 |
| #1 A quote from history: This story doesn't go at all with me; I'm from Missouri, you've got to show me. I'll believe it when it starts behaving like a "religion of peace" and repudiates the violent parts of the Koran like Christianity and Judaism have done with the Bible. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-10-13 00:51 |