Muslims Fail to Prove Islam is a Religion of Peace in Debate

a reply to: greencmp

I disagree, and I cite Christianity as why. We want to ignore our own brand of extremism in this country while calling out people half-way around the world for it. It's bull#. It might not be as violent as them (currently), but that doesn't make it not harmful to others or dangerous. It's called a double-standard and I won't stand for it.

De-occupy the Middle East and let the people who live there fight over that squalid hell-hole for a change.

a reply to: AudioOne what are you talking about? Did you just create an argument involving me?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Wow, just amazing. Thank you so much for this debate. The western world would benefit from watching this.

My thoughts:

Before the debate, I was undecided.

After the debate, I have concluded that Islam is currently not a religion of peace.

The pro argument by Zeba Kahn and Maajid Nawaz:
Islam should be allowed the freedom of contextualization afforded to other religions, and Moderate Muslims do and should speak out and abhorred the violent behaviour of those who contextualize Islam as a religion of violence.

This statement assumes that all religions are founded with a peaceful interpretation and a violent interpretation, but I refer to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said:

No monotheistic religion is a religion of peace

The con argument by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murry:
Islam does not allow under its own laws any reforms or interpretations, and without important leaders stepping forward to become a counter voice to the radical extremism currently present in the Islamic world there will be no hope of Islam becoming a religion of peace, for it will continue to be used by radicals to promote control over people.

This point is never counted because the pro side refuses to admit that Islam's part of the problem. Their silence speaks volumes. It is to be understood that they might have a fear of their life if they were to speak out about this, but Martin Luther and Martin Luther King both understood that and spoke out anyway. Terror wins when it silence the last voice of democracy.

Funniest moment from the opening statements was Douglas Murry's statement:

Muhammad made me an atheist.

Muhammad was akin to a warlord, yet this point should not speak for modern Islam and I will have to concede to the pro argument that history should be contextualized. Still, modern radicals do say that true followers must return to the ways of Muhammad and must kill those who want to repress or ignore the fundamental Islamic way.

The question becomes, do radicals hide behind Islam or do radicals use Islam as a tool?
The con side established that it is being used as a tool to manipulate people into joining a radical groups and the pro side conceded, but challenged that they were manipulated by one of many interpretations of Islam and not their Idea of Islam.

They then talk about the status of women in Islam:

Hirsi Ali points out time and time again that Islam promotes the idea that women must submit to men, and challenges that this was used to suppress women of their rights to an education. This is something that needs reform, yet the pro side only responded with Maaji Nawaz's 'wife as a boss' metaphor, which failed to address the point.

Shortly thereafter Douglas Murry went a bit too far with the comment:

Muhammad raped a 9-year-old.

Even if this is true, the way he said it to dismiss a point was a little low for an intellectual debate. Honestly thought this was one of the few moments where they really got out of line.

In the end, I had to agree that Islam, but its very nature, has no capacity for change or reform, and Islam as it stands today promotes violence. Only if a group of true Islamic scholars meet and form a moderate modern interpretation of Islam and then join the world in criticizing the actions of the Islamic State will Islam ever have the hope of becoming a peaceful religion.

Islamic leaders can not simply blame external factors in this time of crisis. It is time for an Islamic reformation.

Side Note:
Poor Zeba Kahn. She stumbled through most of what she was saying and seemed very intimidated though I can not blame her nor did I hold this against any argument she made.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

Great summary.

So which points does Islam need to reform? Rather, where do you start? I agree a head needs to be appointed, much like the pope but I have low expectations the entire Muslim population could ever agree. The first thing to do would be consolidate the faith under one umbrella. An almost impossible task. Let's say a supreme leader is elected by some miracle, what would be the next list of things to reform?

1. Apostasy - Freedom to leave the religion without fear of reprisal.
This is probably the second if not the most important thing to change.
2. Criticism- Freedom to challenge the theocracy in intellectual debates
3. Equal rights- Goes without saying.
4. ?

Round 2.

a reply to: FlySolo

Thanks.

As to your questions, I know I am not qualified to answer those kinds of questions. Leaders of the moderate Islamic faith located in the western world need to unite in an anti-Islamic State.

If all Muslims were like Zeba Kahn, this would be a non-issue. Its people like her that need to become leaders, to show that women can be spiritual leaders in Islam. She has to do this vocally too, and then she needs to speak out on social media against the 'fake' and 'wrong' Islam being taught by radicals.

Moderate Muslims would need but one reform:

1)The koran is open for interpretation and is not to be held as civil law.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Thanks for adding this to the thread

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
Moderate Muslims would need but one reform...

Jihad is a pillar of Islam, no Muslim can be against the tenets of Islam.

Muslims cannot be against Jihad or they are not Muslims.

Islam has one goal and one goal alone: to assimilate or to destroy.

The Qur’an itself and history both prove that there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

The problem is that it is difficult to establish which Muslim condemns terrorism and who approves it. What we call terrorism to a Muslim is holy Jihad and Jihad is a pillar of Islam. No Muslim can be against Jihad. If you oppose Jihad you are no more a Muslim.

Jihad means waging war against the infidels to make Islam dominant. This, according to the examples set by the Prophet of Islam is done through ambush, raids and killing unarmed civilians, looting them and even raping their wives and taking them as slaves. You and I call these terrorism, Muslims call them Jihad.

But Muslims play with words. They condemn terrorism but can’t condemn Jihad.

The myth of peaceful Muslims

Is there any such a thing as a moderate Muslim? Absolutely not, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.

...there is no distinction between “good Muslims” and bad Muslims. Muslims are Muslims and all of them agree with all the tenets of Islam and Jihad is one of them. Jihad is terrorism and every Muslim who says he is against terrorism is lying or he does not know Islam. He is saying this just to fool you. Muslims cannot be against Jihad or they are not Muslims. You have to see through the veneer of deception to see the reality of Islam.

The first sentence of this paragraph says it all. If these Muslims do not seek to change the tenets of the religion then they can’t change the Jihad which is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam. Therefore their purported opposition to Islamic terrorism is nothing but a pretense.

The rest of this paragraph is nothing but lip service intended to con the gullible westerner, for whose consumption this site is actually devises. The truth is that the Quran does not leave the faithful with any flexibility to modernize. Islam cannot be reformed. How can you reform something that is believed to be perfect?

The myth of peaceful Muslims

You ask: “Can Islam be reformed?” No, it can’t! To reform Islam you have to first get rid of Muhammad and second get rid of the Quran. You have to take out a great portion of that book which is violent. The rest is nonsense and absurdity. But this you can’t do, because you have no authority to do such a thing. Muhammad said that he has perfected his religion (Q. 5:3). How can you improve something, which is perfect? You can’t change the Quran. You can’t reform it. The problem is: who gets to decide which parts of the Quran are applicable and which parts are obsolete? Who has such authority to make this decision?

However, Islam can’t be reformed. You need to have an authority with a rank similar or superior to the one claimed by Muhammad to be able to reform Islam. But that can’t be done, because Muhammad said he was the last prophet.

Why Can't Islam be Reformed?

‘Islam is not a religion. Considering Islam a religion is a mistake that could cost millions of lives. Islam is a political movement set to conquer the world. It is the Borg of the non-fictional world. Islam has one goal and one goal alone: to assimilate or to destroy.’ Whether we want to call Islam a religion or not is a question of semantics. How we define religion is up to us. We can define it so inclusive that Islam also could be qualified as a religion. However, under no circumstances we should forget that Islam is first and foremost a political movement. Its aim is not spiritual but very temporal and political.

Disguised as religion, it not only fools its followers, encouraging them to sacrifice their wealth and their lives for its political agenda, it also remains immune from being opposed by other political parties. The message is very clear. Muslims are waging a Jihad to take over the world. No one is forcing them to educate themselves and modernize. But that is not what they want. They want to dominate and take over the world and religion is just a convenient tool in their quest.

An Imperialistic Cult?

Islam is a totalitarian ideology, cloaked in robes of religion to present itself as honorable to an unsuspecting world. We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance.

Muslim jihadists must obey the words of their book. They fear for their own lives if they do not live as terrorists, because Allah has told them in their book that they should be killed for not obeying. In fact, doubting Allah in the mind of a Muslim is terrible thing.

The Qur’an Proves There Is No Such Thing As Moderate Islam

a reply to: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Jihad is a pillar of Islam

No it is not. There are 5 pillars of Islam, Jihad is not one of them.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
no Muslim can be against the tenets of Islam.

Muslims cannot be against Jihad or they are not Muslims.

Also not true. The traditional definition of a follower of the religion Muhammad preached is: Belief in God, belief in angels, belief in all the scriptures and prophets and belief in the day of judgement. Nothing about Jihad.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Islam has one goal and one goal alone: to assimilate or to destroy.

Again not true at all.
Since the entire thesis for your post seems to be nullified, need I go on and read further? Everything that builds on those previous (wrong) statements would also be wrong. Your entire view on Islam is thus wrong.

Or do you have something else to say?

a reply to: babloyi

Or do you have something else to say?

Taqiyya tells me that nothing you say can be taken at face value...

Like I said earlier, the Qur’an and history have also both proven you wrong.

The fact that 280 million people who were slaughtered by Muslims over the last 1400 years only confirms this...

a reply to: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Or do you have something else to say?

Taqiyya tells me that nothing you say can be taken at face value...

Like I said earlier, the Qur’an and history have also both proven you wrong.

Awesome response! Basically "I have no response for you, so good thing I don't have to respond to anything you say, because I can pretend that there's no point, since you're intrinsically a liar!".
Awesome cop-out! The bigotry is strong in this one . If the Quran proved anything I said wrong (in fact, the opposite is true, all my "This is false" statements are based off the Quran), you'd have provided the references. But they don't exist.

originally posted by: babloyi
The bigotry is strong in this one...

Oh, Boo Hoo…

Tell that to the families of 14 innocent victims gunned down by Muslims in California...

Critics of jihad violence and Islamic supremacism are routinely charged with “bigotry,” as if it were “racist” and “hateful” to oppose terror attacks, the institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslims, the death penalty for apostates, gays, and “blasphemers,” etc. It is drearily routine for mainstream analysts to accuse those who dare oppose Islamic violence against women and homicidal oppression of homosexuals of “Islamophobia.”

In reality, the true bigotry is that which exists at the heart of Islamic orthodoxy. In Saudi Arabia, the very existence of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues is prohibited, along with the Bible itself; no Christian or Jew can enter Mecca or Medina lest their mere footsteps desecrate Islam’s holiest sites. In Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. In Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and even the President’s beloved Indonesia, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other “infidels” often face acts of religious genocide by fundamentalists who invoke core Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions.

Islam: Religion of Bigots

a reply to: Murgatroid

Jihad is not a pillar, but it is a component of the religion and one that I feel would be solved by reform.

Radical Muslims can not be against Jihad or they are not Radical Muslims, but moderate Muslims are against Jihad. The problem is that moderate Muslims remain silent on the actions of the radicals and that needs to stop.

Radical Islam has the one goal of "assimilate or destroy", moderate Muslims have many goals and none of which are to destroy.

History and Islamic scriptures show that there is a violent nature to the religion, yet do not confuse my distaste for Islam in its current state as a tool for Radical Muslims to create propaganda for terrorism, and your hate and bigotry towards all Muslims.

It is sad that few people are taking the OP seriously and having a true intellectual discussion on the topic.

a reply to: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Oh, Boo Hoo…

Tell that to the families of 14 innocent victims gunned down by Muslims in California...

What have they got to do with you being a bigot?
Because, and please, do correct me if I'm in any way wrong (I've quoted every one of your replies for posterity, unless they get removed for you violating the T&Cs), your argument is literally, no joke, "I don't have to engage with you/muslims, because you/they are liars".
I'm sorry, that makes you a bigot. You seem to be wearing that label with pride, as if it marks you as some sort of heroic self-sacrifice to strike down the great demons of Political Correctness or something, so you don't really seem uncomfortable with the label, and it is highly fitting. I guess you should get used to it.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
Jihad is not a pillar, but it is a component of the religion and one that I feel would be solved by reform.

Radical Muslims can not be against Jihad or they are not Radical Muslims, but moderate Muslims are against Jihad

Muslims aren't really against Jihad. The issue here is the distortion of what jihad means. It is literally "struggle", and in the context of islam refers to "struggle in the path of God". It could certainly mean military or armed struggle, or educational struggle, or monetary struggle, or even personal struggle.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
The problem is that moderate Muslims remain silent on the actions of the radicals and that needs to stop.

But this is not true at all. There are thousand upon thousands of condemnations by muslims from all walks of life and authority against the actions of these radicals. It certainly is no difficulty to find such on the net. I suppose "Muslims condemn heinous acts" doesn't make as much news, though, or maybe the media just assumed that would be obvious?

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
It is sad that few people are taking the OP seriously and having a true intellectual discussion on the topic.

It is probably because putting in the investment of an hour and 40 minutes to verify a broken premise (4 people with differing opinions talking somehow proves or disproves something) doesn't seem worth it.

a reply to: babloyi

You defeat yourself in your own post:

If moderate Muslims are not against Jihad how can they speak out against it? Who in Islam decides what Jihad is right and wrong?

The debate does not 'prove' anything, but it does feature 4 very intelligent people(two of which are well respected moderate Muslims whom I respect very much) who rationally discuss the features of Islam. It is well worth the time investment to watch, plus I would love to hear your response to some of the arguments for you seem very intelligent.

I am not trying to bash Muslims, I just want to show that Islam needs reforms as much as U.S. foreign policy, and that's a fact seems to elude the moderate Muslims.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
You defeat yourself in your own post:

If moderate Muslims are not against Jihad how can they speak out against it? Who in Islam decides what Jihad is right and wrong?

The one who is practicing it? You realise that like any ideology or creed it can have as many interpretations as people? I don't understand your point. I said that moderate muslims speak out against the actions of radicals. How do I defeat myself?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Isalmic Peace is the type of peace where you kill everyone who doesn't adhere to your beliefs. They are trying to bring peace to the world by enacting Sharia law everywhere. Kill the nonbelievers or make them pay a tax.

a reply to: babloyi

So, if you can say Jihad is whatever you want it to be, then you can say that what radical are doing is no Jihad, but radicals as practitioners too can be right as well?

If the violence is justified by their own religion, and they can not speak out on what is wrong with their religion, how can they truly denounce the actions of those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam.

By self-defeating I meant that you made the commit that "Muslims are not against Jihad" followed by the commit that implies that moderate Muslims speak out against Jihad violence.

I understand that moderate Muslims detest the violent actions of the radicals, yet I just want to know why they won't reform the religion and create a moderate mainstream ideology of peace that will denounce the actions of radicals from a theological viewpoint.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
So, if you can say Jihad is whatever you want it to be, then you can say that what radical are doing is no Jihad, but radicals as practitioners too can be right as well?

Certainly the radicals believe what they are doing is right. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. However, traditional interpretations of Islam, as well as the majority interpretation today (and wherever they overlap) disagree with them.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
If the violence is justified by their own religion, and they can not speak out on what is wrong with their religion, how can they truly denounce the actions of those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam.

I said jihad is justified by the religion, I didn't say violence is justified. But of course, there are specific situations where violence is justified in Islam as well. Again, it speaks to the broken premise of the debate that it tries to segment or isolate Islam as either "A religion of peace" or the polar opposite. Islam is a religion that exists in the real world, so it has to cater to all sorts of situations, including ones with violence. Compare it to Christianity, where one interpretation may suggest a total prohibition on violence, but that is in absolutely no way realistically possible in today's world (or historically how Christianity rose to supremacy).

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
By self-defeating I meant that you made the commit that "Muslims are not against Jihad" followed by the commit that implies that moderate Muslims speak out against Jihad violence.

But see, you are conflating actions with ideologies, and ideologies with other ideologies here. If you ask the average muslim whether they support Sharia or Jihad and you'd likely get a response along the lines of "Yeah, of course". But then what you seem to think Sharia means (FGM, honour killings, systemic oppression of religious minorities, etc.) and what they think Sharia means (giving to charity, fasting, praying, being polite, respecting parents and elders, diet and hygiene, etc.) could be hugely divergent, and what you think Jihad means (terrorism, killing of innocents, violence against other religions, etc.) vs what they think Jihad means (education, overcoming addiction, standing up against oppression, etc.) would likely again be hugely different.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
I understand that moderate Muslims detest the violent actions of the radicals, yet I just want to know why they won't reform the religion and create a moderate mainstream ideology of peace that will denounce the actions of radicals from a theological viewpoint.

But that again presupposes such does not already exist. This is another reason I find the idea of this debate a little odd- I don't know about Zeba Khan, but Maajid Nawaz seems to be an odd choice to have included in the FOR for this debate, because judging from his previous writings, it doesn't seem like he thinks it is a religion of peace, rather that it is a religion that he needs to come and rescue. However, peaceful traditions and moderate strands of Islam (and no, I'm not just talking about Sufiism or mystical traditions) have existed since its inception- it isn't something new or alien to Islam that requires Islam to be reformed to correct.

a reply to: babloyi

First, thank you so much for a well-written response and a thoughtful look at Islam:

Now my response

Certainly the radicals believe what they are doing is right. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. However, traditional interpretations of Islam, as well as the majority interpretation today (and wherever they overlap) disagree with them.

:

A lack of true central authority is dangerous for an ideology, a good example of this can be seen in a modernist country like Indonesia where a whole province voted to go under Shari'a law. In other religions there are moderate mainstream authorities that speak out against such traditionalism.

I said jihad is justified by the religion, I didn't say violence is justified. But of course, there are specific situations where violence is justified in Islam as well. Again, it speaks to the broken premise of the debate that it tries to segment or isolate Islam as either "A religion of peace" or the polar opposite. Islam is a religion that exists in the real world, so it has to cater to all sorts of situations, including ones with violence. Compare it to Christianity, where one interpretation may suggest a total prohibition on violence, but that is in absolutely no way realistically possible in today's world (or historically how Christianity rose to supremacy).

One of the central things I agree with Hirsi Ali on is that all monotheistic religions are inherently not peaceful, yet through modernist reforms most religions have become more about personal spirituality and less about community. I do not doubt that Islam is a religion that exists in the real world, yet I would argue that in general Islam externalizes its fears and is only growing in terms of radical supporters.

But see, you are conflating actions with ideologies, and ideologies with other ideologies here. If you ask the average muslim whether they support Sharia or Jihad and you'd likely get a response along the lines of "Yeah, of course". But then what you seem to think Sharia means (FGM, honour killings, systemic oppression of religious minorities, etc.) and what they think Sharia means (giving to charity, fasting, praying, being polite, respecting parents and elders, diet and hygiene, etc.) could be hugely divergent, and what you think Jihad means (terrorism, killing of innocents, violence against other religions, etc.) vs what they think Jihad means (education, overcoming addiction, standing up against oppression, etc.) would likely again be hugely different.

Ideologies cause people to act, and in this is the case with Islamic radicalism. I will not try to pretend I know what is in the minds of most Muslims(radical or moderate), but with a large concentration of the population in impoverished and war-torn parts of the world, I would find it hard to believe that radical promises are not listened to by even the most modern and moderate of minds. I want to point out that I do not think this is totally Islams fault, nor do I think that a reform of Islam will solve the world's problems. The actions of the top 1% have to be contained and controlled before the world could ever really talk about peace.

But that again presupposes such does not already exist. This is another reason I find the idea of this debate a little odd- I don't know about Zeba Khan, but Maajid Nawaz seems to be an odd choice to have included in the FOR for this debate, because judging from his previous writings, it doesn't seem like he thinks it is a religion of peace, rather that it is a religion that he needs to come and rescue. However, peaceful traditions and moderate strands of Islam (and no, I'm not just talking about Sufiism or mystical traditions) have existed since its inception- it isn't something new or alien to Islam that requires Islam to be reformed to correct.

I am sure there are some moderate organizations that do speak out, but they seem a smaller minority than the radical ones who have "hijacked the moderate's religion". Zeba Kahn is a wonderful moderate Muslim and she is of whom you are speaking of when you say Jihad is for personal action not violent action. Unfortunately, she was vastly inexperienced compared to the others. Nawaz was a good speaker, but I could tell he had a hard time really coming up with some arguments, so I do not find it surpriseing that he was really for the pro side. He basically gives the debate away with his closing remarks.

Thanks for being reasonable and providing me with a wonderful argument/debate (even if you see it as pointless).