Good "Islam = Religion of Peace" Debate

[Sees]

Not all that new and I'm sure at least a few have seen it before, but....

Having just recently watched it, I couldn't help but imagine what RF commentary would be like I think both sides in this recorded debate did a pretty good job for their position...which is kinda rare, making it more worthwhile than many.

Interested to hear some thoughts on the debate, either as a whole or just on some of the statements/claims made by one or more of those participating.

Pre-Debate - 41% of the audience agreed that Islam is a religion of peace, while 25% disagreed and 34% were undecided.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll have to take a look at this later, if I remember. It is rather long for me to sit down and watch right now.

 

[Deidre]

I'm starting to think that any religion can be a religion of violence or a religion of peace, depending on the mentality of the individual. So, for many, Islam IS a religion of peace, for many, it isn't. If you look at who represents the latter, they probably would take ANY religion and turn it into a tool for destruction, just like they have taken Islam.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Conveniently left out of all debates by opponents of Islam is this verse which sets the parameters for any battle or conflict or war for the entire Quranic Dispensation. Revealed in Medina. It was also revealed at about the time the verse about killing one person was to kill all mankind. Clearly murder is not acceptable in the Quran.

Sura 2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Conveniently left out of all debates by opponents of Islam is this verse which sets the parameters for any battle or conflict or war for the entire Quranic Dispensation. Revealed in Medina. It was also revealed at about the time the verse about killing one person was to kill all mankind. Clearly murder is not acceptable in the Quran.

Sura 2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

And conveniently left out by apologists for Islam is the verse immediately following that one; 2:191

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

 

[Godobeyer]

And conveniently left out by apologists for Islam is the verse immediately following that one; 2:191

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

Please DON'T surprise that apologists for Islam read that one 2:190 too .
I mean the verse previous the key word " AND"

 

[loverofhumanity]

And conveniently left out by apologists for Islam is the verse immediately following that one; 2:191

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

All these verses are in the context of 2:190 being attacked first. Read it in context and it's as clear as the sun.

The stipulation is always if they attack first.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And conveniently left out by apologists for Islam is the verse immediately following that one; 2:191

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

I'm aware of the entire context. Nothing is left out. The very first condition of attacking is to be attacked first. Revealed in Medina. It's abundantly clear the parameters of war are self defense not aggression.

You are only quoting what the terrorists quote to those who they want to brainwash. The other 1.5 billion Muslims do not aggress because they are not taught to. It is against the Quran.

The verse was revealed after 13 years of persecution. The Meccans intended genocide. Muhammad had every right as any people do to defend themselves.

I can't believe what I'm reading that everyone in the world has the right of self defense only it seems Muslims don't. Anyone who knows the early history of Muhammed's time knows they were persecuted and tortured. Why should self defense be denied against genocide?

 

[loverofhumanity]

The different English translations all point out that Muslims must not begin hostilities.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell


2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall

2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

Muhammad Assad

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

Rashad Khalifa

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm aware of the entire context. Nothing is left out. The very first condition of attacking is to be attacked first. Revealed in Medina. It's abundantly clear the parameters of war are self defense not aggression.

I guess Muhammad went against his own instructions then when he went on the offensive after Mecca and assaulted Ta'if. He marched into their territory, beat their army in the field then besieged the city with catapults. That's not a defensive action; neither was marching on Mecca.

You are only quoting what the terrorists quote to those who they want to brainwash.

One man's terrorist is another man's 'true Muslim'. It's not your place to decide who is and is not a true Muslim.

The other 1.5 billion Muslims do not aggress because they are not taught to. It is against the Quran.

Tell that to religious minorities in so many Muslim countries. Christians in Egypt, Hindus in Bangladesh, Zoroastrians & Jews in Iran, Ahmadis in Pakistan, non-Muslims can only practice their religion privately in the Maldives and are disqualified from attaining citizenship by dint of being non-Muslims (okay, that was the case 4 years ago and things may have changed since then), Yazidis & Christians in Iraq, the Pagan Kalash of Pakistan. The list goes on.

The verse was revealed after 13 years of persecution.

13 years of Muhammad slandering the Meccans by claiming they worshipped false gods and that they had corrupted the Kaaba (which would have been supremely insulting to the Quraysh who were its guardians at the time). That's a hell of a long time for such an allegedly intolerant foe to leave someone alive.

The Meccans intended genocide.

Then why did they exile Muhammad? Surely assassinating him would have been more efficacious.

Muhammad had every right as any people do to defend themselves.

His actions stopped being defensive the moment he and his exiled followers began attacking Meccan caravans and violating the sacred month. Muhammad couldn't even be trusted to abide by accepted cultural norms which his religion would hypocritically adopt later.

I can't believe what I'm reading that everyone in the world has the right of self defense only it seems Muslims don't. Anyone who knows the early history of Muhammed's time knows they were persecuted and tortured. Why should self defense be denied against genocide?

You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm not arguing against self-defence because as far as I can tell, Muhammad was not the victim. Time and again he committed offensive military actions against Mecca and her allies - yet apologists for Islam always whitewash or deliberately ignore these because militant, intolerant religions like Islam thrive in a context of victimhood and persecution.

 

[LuisDantas]

There seems to be a live transcript of what I assume to be the same debate at http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/islam-religion-peace

That is very convenient, both for speed and fairness. It is much faster to accurately read through context in a 51 page PDF than to carefully watch through 106 minutes of video.

Some comments:

It is doubtless true that the vast majority of Muslims around the world live peacefully, and do not condone violent acts. Their secular concerns are dominant—making a living, raising families, educating their children. Their religion provides spiritual comfort, and a source of meaning, even transcendence, to their lives.

I wonder. Gut feeling leads me to assume that it is not really very frequent for people who consider themselves Muslims to think of those as secular concerns. That is probably why it is often claimed (correctly if naively, IMO) that "Islam is a complete way of life".

The perception that those are secular as opposed to religious concerns may well be a projection from Western expectations. And one that makes Islam look a lot more harmless than it truly is.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm starting to think that any religion can be a religion of violence or a religion of peace, depending on the mentality of the individual. So, for many, Islam IS a religion of peace, for many, it isn't. If you look at who represents the latter, they probably would take ANY religion and turn it into a tool for destruction, just like they have taken Islam.

What you are saying amounts to saying that any religion can be saved by having wise enough adherents. Which is of course true, but attempts to circunvent the very reason for having a religion to begin with.

It is also yet another strike against Islam, since it relies too radically on scripture and specifically calls for ignoring other matters in order to favor believers over non-believers and Muslims over non-Muslims.

 

[LuisDantas]

Conveniently left out of all debates by opponents of Islam is this verse which sets the parameters for any battle or conflict or war for the entire Quranic Dispensation. Revealed in Medina. It was also revealed at about the time the verse about killing one person was to kill all mankind. Clearly murder is not acceptable in the Quran.

Sura 2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

Why do you consider that convenient exactly? If anything, it is a warning sign for how tribalist Islam is. I don't find it at all reassuring.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I guess Muhammad went against his own instructions then when he went on the offensive after Mecca and assaulted Ta'if. He marched into their territory, beat their army in the field then besieged the city with catapults. That's not a defensive action; neither was marching on Mecca.




One man's terrorist is another man's 'true Muslim'. It's not your place to decide who is and is not a true Muslim.




Tell that to religious minorities in so many Muslim countries. Christians in Egypt, Hindus in Bangladesh, Zoroastrians & Jews in Iran, Ahmadis in Pakistan, non-Muslims can only practice their religion privately in the Maldives and are disqualified from attaining citizenship by dint of being non-Muslims (okay, that was the case 4 years ago and things may have changed since then), Yazidis & Christians in Iraq, the Pagan Kalash of Pakistan. The list goes on.




13 years of Muhammad slandering the Meccans by claiming they worshipped false gods and that they had corrupted the Kaaba (which would have been supremely insulting to the Quraysh who were its guardians at the time). That's a hell of a long time for such an allegedly intolerant foe to leave someone alive.




Then why did they exile Muhammad? Surely assassinating him would have been more efficacious.




His actions stopped being defensive the moment he and his exiled followers began attacking Meccan caravans and violating the sacred month. Muhammad couldn't even be trusted to abide by accepted cultural norms which his religion would hypocritically adopt later.




You're misrepresenting my argument. I'm not arguing against self-defence because as far as I can tell, Muhammad was not the victim. Time and again he committed offensive military actions against Mecca and her allies - yet apologists for Islam always whitewash or deliberately ignore these because militant, intolerant religions like Islam thrive in a context of victimhood and persecution.

This is the official Baha'i view. And what we believe about Muhammad. At least you know where we stand.

“Muḥammad’s military expeditions were always defensive in nature. The clear proof is this: For thirteen years both He and His companions endured in Mecca the most intense persecutions and were the constant target of the darts of hatred. Some of His companions were killed and their possessions pillaged; others forsook their native country and fled to foreign lands. Muḥammad Himself was subjected to the severest persecutions and was obliged, when His enemies resolved to kill Him, to flee Mecca in the middle of the night and emigrate to Medina. Yet even then His enemies did not relent, but pursued the Muslims all the way to Medina and to Abyssinia.”

“For thirteen years He suffered at their hands every conceivable tribulation, till at last He fled the city and emigrated to Medina. And yet, far from desisting, these people joined forces, raised an army, and attacked with the aim of exterminating every man, woman, and child among His followers. It was under such circumstances and against such people that Muḥammad was forced to take up arms. This is the plain truth—we are not prompted by fanatical attachment, nor do we blindly seek to defend, but we examine and relate matters with fairness. You should likewise consider in fairness the following: If Christ Himself had been placed in similar circumstances and among such lawless and barbarous tribes; if for thirteen years He and His disciples had patiently endured every manner of cruelty at their hands; if they were forced through this oppression to forsake their homeland and take to the wilderness; and if these lawless tribes still persisted in pursuing them with the aim of slaughtering the men, pillaging their property, and seizing their women and children—how would Christ have dealt with them”



Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

 

[LuisDantas]

Page 2 of the transcript:

Perhaps the relevant question for this evening is what the majority of Muslims believe.

It is an important question, but it must be answered truthfully and with enough detail to indicate how they deal with the beliefs of the minority, and how responsible they feel for what they believe in.

But perhaps it is whether Islam, viewed as an ideological force, is in direct opposition to western interests and western values.

Not sure what this is even supposed to mean. What are "Western" values? Why would it be wrong to oppose them exactly? And why would that be relevant for situations such as those in India, Burma and the Muslim countries themselves? There is a lot more to this discussion than simply how confortable "Western interests and values" are supposed to be with Islam.

Should we respect Islam as a religion of peace, or should we accept Samuel Huntington’s view that we are engaged in a clash of civilizations?

Even among the apologists of Islam, only minorities that are borderline clandestine express more encouraging views than the claim that Islam should be actively and externally protected from learning to interact with other cultures, so it seems clear to me that there is indeed a clash of expectations at the very least.

The claim that Islam is a religion of peace has been disproved quite consistently in the last 14 centuries, unfortunately.

I have little to say about on Samuel Huntington's views, which I know little to nothing about.

Or might this be a false dichotomy?

It seems to me that it is. We should not neglect the serious internal challenges that Islam imposes on itself, Nor is it at all convenient to present what at least at first glance seems to be an ideology of global domination of Christian thinking as the only alternative to blind acceptance of Islam as a "religion of peace". That is twice too reductionist for anyone's good.

Can we honor our own traditions of pluralism and free exercise of religion, and accept that for the vast majority of Muslims it is indeed a religion of peace, without compromising our ability to defend ourselves and our values against the ruthless few that wish us harm?

I'm not sure that is quite the question to be asked. There is little doubt that most Muslims are peaceful, yet it is hardly enough to focus only on the "ruthless few".

The very notion that there is such a convenient, clear division is questionable at best. Much like there plenty of largely harmless nationalistic voters supporting Trump in the USA, there are legion well-meaning but still gravely misguided Muslims supporting dangerous movements and lines of thought worldwide. More ambitious analysis and response frameworks are needed than this simple decision on what the typical Muslim is like.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pages 3-4: Zeba Khan's background is certainly relevant and interesting. I must however point out that it is also highly specialized and benefits from a particularly enlightened exposure to other cultures and religions. It is hardly typical or representative of Islam as a whole. As a matter of fact, I wonder how aware she may be of what Islam as a whole might be.

For instance, how typical and representative is her explicit respect of Jewish People exactly?

I also find her claim that Muslims are "diverse and ecletic" somewhat optimistic, for lack of a better word. Any given group of 1.6 billion people will be diverse. If anything, Muslims seem to be far less eclect and diverse than one would expect from any other selection of such size, be it a specific selection or a random sample.

Similarly, her claim that there are secular and even purely cultural Musims is certainly accurate but nevertheless misleading. That may or may not be representative of how things are in places where Muslims are settled as a minority. It is not the situation for the vast majority of regions with Muslim majorities, if we are to believe them.

But we must remember that the violent minority of a minority are motivated by politics, not religion. As Gallup concluded, what distinguishes the politically radicalized Muslims from the mainstream Muslims is their politics, not their piety. Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist, further confirmed this in his book, Dying to Win, in which he came to the same conclusion, that the actions of terrorists are politically motivated, not through religion. The Tamil Tigers, for example, which are predominantly a Hindu group, used and pioneered the use of suicide bombing, did so far secessionist reasons, not for religious goals.

Wishful thinking. Islam is a religion, certainly. But even leaving aside the matter of how possible it is to truly separate the two activities, the fact of the matter is that Islam has explicitly political goals, going so far as to establish taxes for non-Muslims and setting different expectations for communities with Muslim majorities.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why do you consider that convenient exactly? If anything, it is a warning sign for how tribalist Islam is. I don't find it at all reassuring.

Muslims are good people and should not be judged by what criminals do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Muslims are good people and should not be judged by what criminals do.

Was that in question?

 

[LuisDantas]

Page 7 (Ayaan Hirsi Ali):

A mentality of victimhood tells those who are conquered, who are vanquished, that the problem was caused by external powers, not by us, and that systematic denial within Islam after the 19th Century to blame only outsiders exempts Islam from blame, from the explanation what went wrong. Yes, it was external, yes, Muslims were humiliated, yes, they were conquered, yes, they were colonized, but how much was also because of the flaws of Islam?

(...) That combination of a status of victimhood and the absolutism -- the demand that you can never revise or reflect on the Koran, that you can never, never ever refute what Mohammad said, you can only follow his example -- that absolutism combined with that status of victimhood also enlarges the likelihood of conflict

Spot on.

Page 9 (Maajid Nawaz):

This debate acknowledges, we, on our panel, Zeba and myself, acknowledge that Muslims do need to speak out against extremism and to challenge it, and more Muslims need to do that more actively.

Also spot on.

We acknowledge that Muslims bear responsibility in reclaiming their faith from those -- the minority who have hijacked Islam and who have captured the public imagination in their definition of Islam.

I somewhat agree. Still, much of the point of Islam seems to be to make people receptive to grand designs presented by minorities, so the challenges are considerable and, to an extent, self-contradictory.


But he is quite correct overall. There is very much the need for such movements. It just won't be easy, nor is it at all certain that there will be some form of success in the end.

Pages 12-14 (Douglas Murray):

So let's not have a debate about Islam and whether or not Islam is a religion of peace without talking about the facts to do with Islam. It's an absurd situation we're in, where nothing that anyone does whilst being Muslim is any responsibility of Islam.

(...) And thirdly, what Muslims do now. Thankfully, there is some hope in that one, because most Muslims, thank goodness -- I almost said thank God, but -- old habits die-hard. Most Muslims don't do what those texts say because they exercise their judgment as moral beings without having to refer to defunct holy books.

Now, look, I wish that Zeba and Maajid were the spokespeople of Islam. It would be lovely. Although in Maajid's case, it would have taken rather too long if everyone had to go 14 years of preaching the downfall of America and then said no, not so much.

But we are where we are. Anyhow, I wish they spoke for Islam. It would be great. But the fact is that tonight, the organizers of this debate asked a number of clerics, none of them which showed, specifically they wouldn't show and debate against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Myself, I don't think they cared. But no, it's very interesting. They will not debate. Time and again, Muslims -- the actual leaders of your religion will not debate this. And you are left with people -- now here, the reasons why of course is the leaders of the religion show such terrible -- terrible lessons. It is not a small thing. It's not as if it were a detail. It's not like a wacky Florida pastor. But you've got the largest Sunni state of Saudi Arabia, the most important Sunni state in the world, the most extraordinary closed prison of a society. It's not a detail. It's not a one-off nut job. The Shiite republic of Iran is what it is, led by the people it's led by. That is not an accident. It's not a detail.

(...)

I wish that Zeba, you were on every week on Al Jazeera, but you are not. Qaradawi is. The problem is that Islam is an unstable component, as a religion, an unstable component. A thousand years ago, the Mustabalites [spelled phonetically] tried to reform the religion. They were wiped out. The fact is that Islam is many things, many, many things. But to say it's a religion of peace is nonsense. It's to ignore reality. It's to ignore very difficult but necessary facts, not paradigms, but facts.

To say that Islam is a religion of peace is to say something based entirely on hope. It's to elevate a hope into truth. And I hope, as you will note, history teaches us that's a very bad thing to do. Thank you.

So right!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Muslims are good people and should not be judged by what criminals do.

Luis said "Islam", not 'Muslims'. Ideas are not people.