In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush characterized Islam as a religion of peace. Many people agree with that belief, saying the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives.
But others counter that the roots of Islam include violent leaders, teachings and scripture.
A team of experts argued both sides of the motion "Islam Is a Religion of Peace" in a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Two argued in favor and two against.
Before the Oxford-style debate at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, the audience voted 41 percent in favor of the motion and 25 percent against. Thirty-four percent were undecided. After the debate, however, 55 percent disagreed that "Islam Is a Religion of Peace," 36 percent supported the motion and 9 percent were still unsure.
John Donvan, correspondent for ABC News' Nightline, moderated the Oct. 6 debate. Source
FOR THE MOTION
Maajid Nawaz is director of the Quilliam Foundation. Formerly, Nawaz served in the U.K. national leadership for the Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir and was involved in HT for almost 14 years. He was a founding member of HT in Denmark and Pakistan. He eventually served four years in an Egyptian prison and was adopted by Amnesty International as a "prisoner of conscience." In prison, Maajid gradually began changing his views until he finally renounced the Islamist ideology for traditional Islam and inclusive politics. He now engages in counter-Islamist thought-generating, writing and debating.
Zeba Khan is a writer and advocate for Muslim-American civic engagement. Born and raised in Ohio by devout Muslim parents, she attended Hebrew school for nine years while actively participating in her local Muslim community. In 2008, she launched Muslim-Americans for Obama, an online network to mobilize Muslim-American voters in support of the Obama presidential campaign. Since then, she continues to work on issues of Muslim-American civic engagement and was recognized for her work by the American Society for Muslim Advancement as a 2009 Muslim Leader of Tomorrow.
AGAINST THE MOTION
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament for three years. She has since become an active critic of fundamentalist Islam, an advocate for women's rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. She has also become a target of death threats by Islamic extremists. Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The Caged Virgin (2006), Infidel (2007) and Nomad (2010). She is the founder of the AHA Foundation, whose mission is to defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam and tribal custom.
Douglas Murray is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. He is also founder and director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a nonpartisan think-tank in Westminster, London, that focuses on radicalization and has published work on both Islamist and far-right extremism. Murray is a columnist for Standpoint magazine and writes for many other publications. In 2005, he published the critically acclaimed Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, which Christopher Hitchens praised as "a very cool but devastating analysis." He is a co-author of the NATO strategy report, "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership."
Wow! The audience that went against the motion almost doubled, that's a great victory. Praise God.
"Vote for what you think Islam can be"
Was the debate about can Islam become a religion of peace? If you say "Vote for what you think Islam can be",,, Aren't you in reality conceding the point that Islam IS NOT a religion of peace?
I want to thank David for posting this debate and for helping me with a list of materials I needed to start to get involved in this debate. I have found them invaluable in a debate forum already. So thanks.
Now to tell my feelings about the debate. I am used to watching debates between Muslims and Christians that approach the issue from a much more theological point. I think I like those type debates better. But I am really happy to see more non theologian types get involved in the debate. I was really glad to see that two atheist/agnostics where debating Muslims in a such a big venue. I like the fact that one of the agnostic/atheist is an Ex-Muslim.
I would have preferred the question to be "are moderate Muslims 'good Muslims' in the sense of orthodoxy“? In other words the question should have been "What is Islamic orthodoxy"?
It was stated by Ayaan that "extremist" argue that "moderates" are not practicing what the Koran and Sunna (the deeds, sayings and approvals of Muhammad) teach (ie. Orthodoxy). The opposition never answered that dynamic specifically. Instead we heard that "there are as many interpretations of Islam and the Koran as their are people", which is really absurd. When studying any text, religious or not, it is not a matter of interpretation. It is always an issue of the authors original intent and meaning. It does not matter to me what interpretation of Islam anyone holds. What matters to me is what Allah and Mohammad intended and meant when they delivered the Koran to mankind as the last inspired revelation from God. And more importantly how Mohammad applied that intent and meaning.
So I like the more theological debates because they deal more with the inherent nature of Islam. But I am really enthused that non theological types are debating the issue, although I think they miss the main point.
Against FACTS there are NO arguments.
This is truly great. I really do feel sorry for the two that are trying to defend Islam. They are trying to defend a undefendable position.
That the Islamist Party were not voted into power in Pakistan does not - as Zeba Khan would have us to believe - suggest that Islam is a non-violent ideology. How many of those voters know about the sources that encourages violence? Perhaps they know, but do not want to live in a society that is so radical.
So Muhammad's wife, Khadijah, "was his boss." Time scale is significant here.
I think the reason Islam does not promote education for women is because of the same reasons we see throughout history when you want to suppress the peoples. Deny them an education so you can enslave their minds. After all, nowledge is power, and we see how Muhammad reacted against those who were poets and educated.
This should be required viewing in schools, instead of taking children to mosques and having them pray as they do in Massachusetts....
The 2 atheists/agnostics arguing against Islam being a Religion of Peace, are also against Christianity and all religion in general. That's why I think it's better to argue against Islam from a Christian standpoint as opposed to a secular worldview. This is not to deduct from the good work that they did at the debate, but it's just a thought.
I went into Answering Christianity room on Paltalk to share this information.
It was funny because they brought up that the people for the motion did not represent Islam, the sheiks and the Imans are on Arabic TV representing Islam.
Isn't that a point that was brought up in the debate and that is the problem that the two on the panel did not represent Islam.
I then brought up who was against the motion, I got as far as mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali name and then the religion of peace came out. Wish I could of recorded audio but here is what one Muslim had to say in text.
legend123_3: She should be punched in the face
legend123_3: hirsi ali is a murtad
legend123_3: she needs to be killed
legend123_3: she needs to be killed for spread corruption about islam
Yeah the two in favor of the motion really do not represent Islam
Warrior 4 Truth
Amen my sentiments exactly. I must admit I have troubled by this approach. The greatest argument Islam is the Gospel itself. The scriptures are sufficient.
Did you notice something, David? None of the people on the panel were Christians, but occasionally Christianity got a small voice here. How does he do it? (Jesus ;))
That's why I think the best people to debate Muslims are atheists, cause they got no ammunition against them. When the atheists have worn them out, then we swoop in. This debate had a lot of circular arguments from the Muslim side, that just sounded ridiculous.
And another point I would like to make is this: why do Muslims keep referring to them selves as Muslim-Americans? Is Muslim a country? (uhh...Yes.) Why don't they call themselves Afghani-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, etc. Keep posting these debates if you find them. Quite lively.
Warriorfortruth,Bart, and MC. I do understand your position. However ISLAM is not just a enemy of God, it is also a enemy of Mankind. On every level, Political, Social, Economic, theological, it is violently opposed to any thing other then the flavor of Islam the people in power follow.
The sad part is that Islam more often then not is a enemy to those practicing Islam.
Warrior4Truth And The Fat Man.......
I agree w/ both of u. i felt a little uneasy watching the debate out of fear that either side was gonna miss quote the Bible, which they did on several occasions I.e. Jesus said didn't come to bring peace but a sword.
But the atheists knowledge on Islam was good, i think they did good. My only problem is w/ Ayaan Hirsi....She has a tendency to categorize Christianity in the same pot w/ Islam. I have heard her speak several times before and she hates Christianity as much she hates Islam.
I pray that she will see the vast difference between Jesus and allah.
I struggled if I should post my comment and I certianly agree that Islam needs to be exposed because it is the enemy of Western values> The point is that both of those who were argueing against the motion are enemies of Christianity. One statement that was made Ayaan was that all forms of mono-theism were violant. I think when push comes to shove she would go after Christians as well as Muslims.
In this case we need to be careful that we don't fall the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I have just read the comments,I still haven't seen the debate but will right now.It sounds exciting!
I was troubled by the comment that Ayan Hirsi Ali hates Christianity.i hate to admit it,but there are many atheists who are very ignorant of the basic ethical teaching of Jesus,maybe she is in the group.
I know the situation,I was there,before I knew nothing but a few ideas about Christianity and I thought I knew it well.I was wrong.One can be very smart in one thing and very ignorant in another.
ATHEISTS WHO ADMIRED JESUS(they had studied him)
1.NIETZSCHE(the famous philosopher)
2.SPINOZA(he considered him the greatest of the Jewish prophets)
AND THE DEISTS Voltaire and Jefferson
In avraidire.eu it is getting scary,there have been comments by Muslims who approve of stoning people to death.They say it is very hard to do it,the requirements are very strict,it is almost impossible, but it is ok.
This was a very good debate, the Motion clearly failed miserably in trying to responding to the arguments.
At the beginning of her opening presentation Zeba Khan said that "Yes there are violent verses in the Quran but we should see what Muslims are doing". Are you kidding me? You're a Muslim, you have to appeal to the Quran in everything no matter what, how can you ignore what the Quran clearly says and say that we have to look at what Muslims are doing, and if we give examples of what the extremists are doing in the name of Islam they are suddenly considered "False Muslims" if you will. So we have two type of Muslims in conflict with each other:
1) The western Muslims will say that the terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc are not representing Islam and are not true Muslims
2) The Extremists and Radical Muslims will say that whoever doesn't follow everything that the Quran teaches about fighting in the name of Allah is not a True Muslim.
So which type of Muslim is correct? The Western Muslims or the Extremists? Well, to find out we would have to look at what the Quran, and the Hadiths say, and everything points to what the extremists are doing as True Islam.
Maajid Nawaz also wasn't very convincing either to be honest, most of the time he would attack Christianity as if it has got something to do with the topic; It had nothing to do with the topic, his opponents weren't even Christian, so why he brought Christianity into the debate, I don't know, but hey it's typical of Muslims to do this. But the one thing i liked about Majid was that he was honest, he admitted that there is violence in the Quran, and that Mohammed having a 6 year old wife was inappropriate, but I think he is very very naive to believe that Islam will change from a Religion which promotes violence and world domination into a religion who is peaceful and that is more compatible with Western Society, this is a fairy tale it will never happen unless you want to remove hundreds of verses from the Quran.
Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both did a great job and I think they clearly won this debate, they both referred to the History of Islam, the Quran and the Life of Mohammed in which the Motion most of the time ignored especially Zeba. But I disagreed with Ayaan saying that no Monotheistic religion can be a religion of Peace, because simply that is not the case with Christianity or Judaism it is only a problem with Islam.
Here are my first thoughts on the debate.
The Muslim woman said it was a "primarily Hindu group".False.It was a MARXIST group.So what?The Maxists are ATHEISTS(Marx was an atheist).Their leaders were definitely not religious.Ayan should have contested that affirmation.
SHE WENT TO HEBREW SCHOOL
Ok,she knows the Koran.Ayan knows it also.She should have said that 5:64 of the Koran says that Allah put HATRED and ENMITY in the Jews till the DAY of RESURRECTION.The audience certainly didn't know it.
So where is the love for the Jews?The Koran curses them till the day of resurrection.
I am amazed Ayan did not mention that 9:111 says those who kill and are killed fighting for ALlah go to paradise.Did the audience know it?No.
JIHAD IN EGYPT
I am also amazed Ayan did not contest the Muslim man's assertion that the JAILED JIHAD leaders in Egypt had renounced violence.They had BUT...
For years they had killed people in Egypt and were trying to overthrow the government,they wanted even more Sharia law.The leaders were caught and later renounced violence.
THAT WAS ALL
They STILL wanted an ANTi-HUMAN RIGHTS system in Egypt,only the METHOD to obtain it had changed,NOT the objective itself.Now they wanted to get to power by elections in Egypt.
The Muslim man was,in my view,doing takiya,he did not tell the audience that.Ayan and the other should have pointed it out.
This is all over my head. I'm not well learned or schooled in Religious affairs. But I do know this, My God is alive and well, He knows the very thoughts of man. If He can use a jackass to warn Balaam, He can use any thing. We need to Pray that the spiritual eyes are opened. And that He would use the debate to His Glory.
One thing that is making me laugh is Zeba. I lived in the middle east for the first 18 years of my life in Syria, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that while she spoke so much about how the Muslim extremists are supposedly the minority, I can tell that she is a rare minority herself. I've NEVER seen or heard of any women praying with men in the same mosque side by side. Not only that, but the vast majority of muslims may not be willing to commit suicide bombing but the vast majority of them are suicide bomber sympathizers and they know that these people are just doing jihad and they are going to heaven..etc etc. Heck every public school in Syria is named after either a martyr (which some of them were suicide bombers!) or an important Islamic figure. This shows how much Islam respects the jihadist and suicide bombers.
Plus it's laughable that they had to bring a women so liberal such as Zeba to the debate who doesn't even wear a head scarf to comply with Islamic law. This, to me, shows desperation because they may have thought that the audience would look at the issue in a better perspective because she doesn't look "oppressed" in a head scarf.
As for the debate, while we have to be careful how much we support atheists, I think there should be no doubt who won the debate. Douglas IMO showed exactly why Islam is NOT a religion of peace. the Quran and Muhammad are horrible towards the unbelievers. Majid and Zeba just could not answer the main issue and kept on trying to steer the Audience into thinking that Islam is reformable. The idea that the Quran is word for word from Allah means it cannot be changed, therefore Islam cannot be reformed. The only thing you can do to it is put the whole thing in the trash can of history as Ayaan stated.
What a great debate. I really respected both Maajid and Zeba. They made me wonder of perhaps one day Islam could reform into a religion of peace. They both seem to have found a way to make their personal faiths peaceful. I actually think that they did a good job of debating with Ayaan and Douglas.
I can't help wondering, though, how much of the Koran these people have to steadfastly ignore in order to stay so liberal and moderate. I can't help wondering how much of the hadith and sira they have had to gloss over, how much they have had to explain away with 'cultural relativism'. I mean, even relative to his time, Mohammed wasn't exactly Humanitarian of the Century. They have also conveniently ignored the fact that God's greatest prophets should be held to a much higher moral standard than your average Arabian warlord, even if we factor in cultural and historical norms.
I really think that if Ayaan or Douglas had simply stood up and given a brief biography of the prophet along with an overview of the Koran, they would have had an even bigger victory.
I was interested in Maajid's statement that the Iranians had believed in a secular government rather than a theocracy before the revolution, on religious grounds. Islam seems to me as much a political ideology as a religion, so I wonder how the Iranians Islamically justified making this separation between religion and state. It would be interesting to find out and a useful argument against those who want to see Sharia law implemented in every nation.
A great and excellent debates ... I even have been watched it several times ...Thank you David for sharing.. I Just wouldlike to comment on few points:
1: I think it has been made very clear to the audience as well as toeveryone who watch the debate that the panel FOR the motion are approaching the topic using sheer deceptio i.e taqqiyah!
in most of their answers they attempted over and over to hide the vlearly evident violence in islam ... In fact to condemn current violence in islam, is to condemn the whole islamic history and the founder of islam muhammad. If their moral really wouldnt accept violence to soread the message of islams, then you shouldnt be a muslim anyway!.. this will take me to the next point:
2: I dont think there is any hope for islam not to be violent. Cause in order to do this, you have to through out massive portions of the literature and history, along with through out eminent islamic interpretations with new interpretations. The question: is this possible ? of course not! if you did this, you are not a muslim anymore,you can call yourself anything else like Bahai or Ahmadyia, which are not recognized by Sunni not Shia. In additon it is clear that muslims not only cant do this, but also are not willing to do so!
3: Maajid claimed that Mainstream islam would condemn extremist, but they are only fearful of being killed!!! well let me say this: that is not true.. islam forbids muslims to kill their fellow muslims under any circumstances, except in two cases: a) apostate b) invading other muslim country. Muslim blood is the ONLY blood that muslims are not allowed to shed. In fact, muhammed made it clear, that whoever say no god but allah, is safe from being killed!
4: I would disagree with Ayan that Christianity and Judaism are violent. But I am not going to discuss that, tokeep the discussion within its Context. Other than that, I would like to state my strong admiration to her strong character.
When Zeba said "How am I not obeying Islam?" The most glaring rebellion is Quran 33:53. Of course, it would be argued that that verse was only pertaining to the wives of Mohammad, but the wives of Mohammad are called mothers of Islam, and Muslim women are directed to study and emulate them. If I were a betting woman, I would lay some money down that many of the covered women in that audience would agree with me.
Every one is talking in general terms with out refering to quran , which is source of all the teachings for Muslims.In fact the only reference to Quran in the debate was 2:193. If we start reading the Surah 2:191 to 2:194 in continuity , It is the most just and balanced teaching for all humans. Please read those first and then if you have question let us talk.
Most sensible Muslims avoided attending this debate as the whole point is to point the finger as Islam being a problem.
The only type of characters to attend were British govt funded characters like Majid Nawaz, who peddled British govt ideology and views on the issue. A waste of time debate full of errors, inaccuracies and neoconservative ideology.
I don't think Majid or Zeba had
knowledge of Islam for the argument. Ali and Murray were just bing nagitive for the sake of it.
The Holy quran has to be read in full context and understood properly with good knowledge of Arabic. you can speal arabic but it dosen't mean you could understand the holy Quran.
Islam is the peaceful religion if you follow it correctly.
Quote: Islam is the peaceful religion if you follow it correctly. Unquote.
Dear mr. Mahmood, or should I say 'uncle Tom?' Your comment makes me puke. If a slave subjects to his master, of course there is peace in his heart. But no sane human being wants to be a slave and submit to his master Muhammed.
People want peace and freedom and no peace by submission. Truly, I dispice your religion and I don't care wether that offends you. Good day.
This is an absolutely stupid debate.
The Media does a lovely job of putting everyday Muslims on TV and holding them up to be experts representing their religion. That too against an expert journalist and an established orator (despite the lies).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali regularly misrepresents the Quran by adding words to quotes from the Quran and the fact that the opposing Muslims are so clueless that they can't pick up on it shows how biased this debate is.
Tell her to find a hardline traditional Scholar like Dr. Zakir Naik and prove in that debate that Islam is not a religion of peace. It should be easier if she is right but she is too scared because she will be proved wrong by real scholars who have memorised the Quran word for word and can contextualise her every Quote.
Dr. Zakir Naik: http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/misconceptions/a04.htm
Reply to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
TO THE UNCONVINCED,
JAZZY SAID: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali regularly misrepresents the Quran by adding words to quotes from the Quran and the fact that the opposing Muslims are so clueless that they can't pick up on it shows how biased this debate is."
PLEASE SEE VIDEO #5 13:30- 14:35 to see the exact opposite is true and it is Muslims who quote passages incompletely and use contextomy to hide their true meanings.
Jazzy cannot give specific references from this video to validate his false accusations against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. IF COULD,,, he would have referenced them.
And of course the accusation of stacking the deck by selecting "everyday " or "clueless Muslims" against "expert journalist and an established orator" is just foolishness.
Can we assume that Jazzy is an "ex-extremist turned non-extremist" such as Maajid Nawaz?
Or maybe that he was *the one person* who beat Zeba Khan out of first place of 4800 people (since she won second place) in the New York times reality game show to find Americas next pundit ( = learned person, teacher, person who speaks authoritatively)?
The people in the "YES" team were contextualizing their way through the Quran.
But don't be fooled! They are actually the genteel, well-dressed, articulate, good-looking front of Islam. Right behind them are the likes of Anjem Choudery (with his 5-foot sword), who go about pushing their arrogant, violent, domineering Islamic agenda. Ayaan and Murray had an easy time knocking out the demure Zeba and the dashing Maajid. But they will not escape alive if they said what they said in front of Anjem, unless they had M-16s within reach. Check this out:
Zeba's claims of peace is really a camouflage for these guys to come into our free-speech space, to belch out their ideology. And what happens when you counter their arguments? The Anjem-types immediately pull out their 5-foot swords. I'll bet Maajid and Zeba will immediately swallow their words.
Yup, M-16s (and a few nukes) are the only way to deal with anyone who insists on ramming his religion down everybody else's throat instead of keeping it to himself and his god.
Iam from Suriname which is partly located in South-America and partly in the Caribean peninsula.
We are a former Dutch colony we also have Dutch as official language in our country.
Dear sister and brother Maajid
you must understand that in genaral the majority of audience will never vote in favour of Islam
also in case you have performed better.Having said so,there are many reasons such as ignorance about Islam and the Quran,but only
what they have been brain washed by media such as fox and people like Ayaan and Douglas onle telling lies out of frustration they have because of reasons Iknow even better about than they but Iwill not go further into that and more reasons such as jalousy that Islam is growing by nature with the blessing of Allah and not by
knocking at people door or driving around in the whole world especially the poor countries to bribe the poor and convert them to christianity.however the main point and reason is the white supremacy which will never accept competition even if you are on the right track ofcourse the good ones
are not part of this group.
The debate was also arrogant from the side of Ayaan and Douglas and honestly speaking I was dissapointed in your reply and Maajid as well,because:
Ayaan started to refer to things which are out of the box with respect to the subject.And this in generally christians always do when they are loosing the fight.
She started refering that Prophet
Muhammed-pbuh-raped a girl of 9 years and then Douglas mentioned the same 2 times again just to influence the audience because they did not had real facts to make a case based on the subject.
My dear Sister and Brother how could you have NOT defend the Islam in this UGLY-REPAT-UGLY-LIES
because: 1.The Quran has to be discussed and not the Hadith.2.The Hadith is written by man and is definetly not the word of God.3.
Going to the old testament and before they also mentioned in the scriptures that Salomon had 700 wifes-Abrahams the same story as he also had affair with a lot of his slaves-Jezus was homo -In the Talhmud the old version of the Torah said they had sex with one month born child etc.etc.
4. ALL this stories were written by human ,but finally to know is that there are many Hadith written and anly a few are officialy recognized.Because there are a number of false Hadith written by opponent of the Islam.
So this point about under age girl is man made in the false Hadiths to attack the Profet Muhammed-pbuh- If we Muslim keep silent and not react including the samples above given than they will keep coming with this issuea tq frustrate any debate.
wassalam-mehrour Badloe-email: email@example.com
Let's look at today world situation as such debates has also been backed up by the negative propoganda of mainstream media in the world and especially in the USA.WHAT ABOUT THE PRIESTS having sex with under aged boys and sometimes girls on daily basis anyone will conclude this is part of the christian religion especially because VATICAN is keeping it secret and charges against this type of immoral behaviour are hardly made.
What about the christians killing 6 million jews..Who did this?? Hitler alone,what about all his soldiers,they did not know what they were doing???The fight between jews and christians goes till far in the past in the bible.Isn't it ????Who kills hundred thousands Muslim in Iraq without any reason.no smoking gun???Who is killing children and baby's today in palestine ,this is the thankfullness they receive today after the Palestines open their country in the second world war when this same European countries did not want the jews because they wanted a country for their own.But a lot more from the past and the current situation in the world especially Muslim countries.They interfair in this countries by white man for their interest.Muslin are mainly fighting to each other killing each other which i also don't agree with,but they are not attacking white man.
The 9/11 attack were mostly saoedi- citizens because they don't want USA in their country.Still Bush went to bomb Iraq in the name of christ and the bible and supported by false information from Israel ,same Israel want to do know with Iran to make the USA and their sons and daughter in the army do the dirty job with Iran,they don't care how many sons and daughters from parents in USA will die and/or get injured same like what happened in Iraq ,a war for nothing and so many boys and girls from USA died just to fulfill the wish of Israel and their supporters in the USA politic,
Another point Ayaan referring to the position of woman .But,by reading the Quran and studying good what you are reading and not like the illeteterate scholars than there is only one conclusion:
The right of woman is the best secured in the Holy Quran among all other religion What makes it wonderfull is that it was there already 1400 years ago because the Quran is the only holy book on earth whereby proven NOT a single world have been altered.Compare to the bible nobody knows if they are reading a real bible or not and that"s also why i'm not interseted to wish time to read the bible because i cannot read something in the of God which is changed many times by human.
Wassalam-mehrour Badloe-email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Anyone who want to challenge the subject of woman with the Quran
Invite them to my email email@example.com
Ayaan mouth was stuck when the moderator asked about position of woman in the Quran.Anyone can see
she was in a jam and than she came up with the following remark:
According to the Quran woman can inherit half of what the brother is receiving.This is below the belt: Because at least the woman
is protected that she cannot left with empty hands like what is happening in reality,the Muslim parents can't act this way while parents from other religion are free to harm their daughter because their religion did not put
the rules for this.Based on the Quran the daughter is secured of minimun half the brother is getting and the parents are free to make it more.
This statement in the Quran is also based on the reality that the daughter one day becomes mother and mothers like to give their son more ,but the Quran have protected the daugthers with this verse.
Also woman are very much protected in the manner of divorce -0The fact that a man will or can have 4 wives is also to protect the woman that her husband will have only one if he is realy a Muslim and live and follow the guidance of the Quran,
Because Allah knew that man in general independent of their religion most man cheat theiron his wife.So,the Quran have put rules to the man such as They have to treat all equal which means financially but also sexually-His wife has to know ,he can not keep his cheating secret and some more conditions.
In the reality this does not happened because no man can fulfill this conditions and secondly Muslim man in general are
staying with their wife if we compare to other,because real Muslim man can not drink alcohol or gamble or play card for money etc.etc.This all make the ocassion for a real Muslim man following the Quran very much impossible to follow the wrong path.
However in other religions all this conditions are not mentioned,so in fact the man following those religions are not
bind by any condition so they are
free compare to the Muslim man.
Conclussion:The woman is far more protected in Islam than any other religion on earth.I chalence and invite anyone to have the guts and read the Quran using your brain.You will read a lot more about woman protection such as how to divorce which is realy not easy if you follow the Quran and many-many daily issues more written 1400 years ago and still in the same text because not a single word has been altered in contrast
with the bible.
Thank you guys , you were both awesome and you acted politely as we expected from you as muslims even though you were under attack and the opponent lied again and again and choose specific verse while ignoring the context of the holly koran.
The lady who claimed she was muslim I can only assume that she was never close to be even a muslim and the way she behaved had nothing to do with islam at all.
again thank you s much for defending our faith and especially for working hard to show that islam is a peaceful religion and that we are here millions of muslim people working hard for our communities and families and we reject any form of violence what so ever.
thank you gain and you really did a god job.
Post a Comment