Monday, November 1, 2010

Christopher Hitchens vs. Tariq Ramadan: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Christopher Hitchens isn't the sharpest atheist in the world, but he's one of the most rhetorically talented (and angriest). Hence, he can be defeated by a capable opponent when the evidence is stacked against him, for rhetoric isn't everything. (If you get a chance, purchase the DVD of his debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Even atheists acknowledge Hitchens's defeat!)

What happens when Hitchens has all of the evidence on his side? Find out in this debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace. (For another atheist vs. Muslim debate on the same topic, click here.)

*****UPDATE***** Unfortunately, the debate has been removed from YouTube. This is all that's left:


sparapet said...

Not a very strong argument base on either side. Some skewed historical facts and misunderstood mainstream religious principles (this may have also been takkyia in action). I "liked" best the multicultural paradise is the Osman empire - pure lie. Can't believe people are ignorant enough to listen to these "debaters" without laughter...

Jabari said...

Christopher Hitchens said that "No religion is a religion peace by definition."

He couldn't be more wrong.

Christianity is a religion of peace, even in spite of all violence committed in the name of my Lord and Savior.

I can't wait to debate Mr. Christopher Hitchens.

Bfoali said...

Question to David Wood: Which Atheist(s) acknowledge that Hitchens lost his debate against William Lane Craig?
Thank you in advance

mkvine said...

Hitchens is not a very good debater - his rhetoric makes up for his lack of substance. But when you debate a subject like Is Islam a Religion of Peace, you don't have to be the best debater in the world to prove Islam is NOT a religion of peace. This should be an easy victor for Hitchens.

David Wood said...

Bfoali said: "Which Atheist(s) acknowledge that Hitchens lost his debate against William Lane Craig?"

Pretty much everyone admits that Craig destroyed Hitchens. Here's a comment from an atheist review (on the "Common Sense Atheism" site):

"Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."

Here an atheist says, not only that Craig won, but that he "spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." Hitchens wouldn't even stand up and give his conclusion.

Traeh said...

While I don't agree with Hitchens' atheism, I do think he brilliantly devastated Ramadan -- at least in the initial statements and rebuttals, which is all I've watched so far.

Over the last year or so I've heard a lot of bad things about Ramadan -- that he's a deceiver pretending to be a reformer, that he hasn't really departed from the global sharia goals of his grandfather, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. But I doubted all those rumors. Now, having watched him here, I did find his argument slippery, deceptive, full of smoke and mirrors, with a bit of rhetorical glitter and some superficial cleverness to fool the fools. I don't know if he's venomous and malignant, or just slithery and deceptive, but he's a snake. He's a hybrid creature born of the worst aspects of French culture on the one hand, and of Islam on the other. I say that as someone who is partly French.

First Hitchens made a ten-minute statement. Then Ramadan did. Then Hitchens rebutted. Then it was Ramadan's turn to rebut. He stepped up to the microphone and paused. I think at that moment one could see that Ramadan was at a loss because Hitchens' rebuttal had been so devastating. Ramadan simply didn't know where to start, what to do. Finally, he just started talking rather vaguely and dishonestly, since he couldn't really face the charges head on. Gradually he worked his way into his familiar equivocationist rhetoric. His title in the West should be the Great Equivocator-Prevaricator.

Radical Moderate said...

I'm on Part 4 of the debate. And I noticed the Muslim said a common theme. That Jihad is about fighting the oppressor. Then he goes on to attack the US and Allied forces for attacking Iraq. I have heard other muslims say this as well.

My question for the Muslims is that if Jihad is to fight the oppressors, and Saddam Husein was a oppressor then shouldn't Muslims around the world have jumped in with the US in over throwing him?

Just food for thught

Unknown said...

Everyday Muslims prove to us that islam is the religion of peace!

Take a look at these photos of their recent attack on the church of the Lady of Hope in Iraq, Nov 2, 2010.

WARNING: images contain graphgic representation

proof for god said...

Hitchens in his opening remarks and then near the end of the discussion claimed that Christianity is not a religion of peace and is in fact a cause and promoter of violence and atrocities.
Yet Jesus and the apostles called for the spreading of the gospel thru truth, love, preaching, compassion and charity; hardly ingredients of atrocities.

Unlike islam’s first leader and early followers:
Jesus advanced Zero military battles
Peter advanced 000 military battles
Paul 000
James 0
John 0
Matthew 0
Stephen 0 …….

also one can claim to b a Christian, but if one doesnt follow the Prince of Peace, the claim is inconsistent.

All 1st cent Christians followed hard after Christ and thus were men and women of peace, love, truth and charity.
The 1st opportunity that the early Christians had to engage war; instead of fighting a military battle against Rome in the pre-invasion of Jerusalem, they fled to Pella before 70 AD.

Eusebius (325)
"But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. " (History of the Church 3:5:3)

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written."
(Luke 21:20-22

P.S. Timothy McVeigh was an atheist who committed his acts, not in the name of Christ, but the name of human autonomy. He refused to see a prison chaplain at his execution.

Unknown said...

more reference on the event:

^ a b c d
^ a b New York Times Death Toll From Iraq Church Standoff Rises Published: November 1, 2010
^ a b c d
^ BBC News 1 November 2010 Eyewitness: Baghdad church siege
^ >> Insurgents in Iraq seize Catholic church in Baghdad
^ a b
^ BBC News 1 November, 2010 Eyewitness: Baghdad church siege "there would be an explosion or gunshots over our heads, over the lights, over the fixtures, over the Crucifix, over the Madonna, everywhere."
^, Monday 1 November 2010 "Mahrouq said a group of about 100 worshippers were herded to the centre of the church by the gunmen who repeatedly taunted them. Another 60 or so were ushered to a small room at the back of the church by a priest. "They were saying to us, 'you are infidels,'" Mahrouq said. "Things like: 'we're going to heaven, you're going to hell.'"
^ a b c
^ a b c
^ a b Surk, Barbara; Jakes, Lara (1 November 2010). "Iraqi Christians mourn after church siege kills 58". Associated Press ( Retrieved 2 November 2010.
^ New York Times 1 Nov 2010
^ New York Times 1 Nov 2010
^ "Kurdistan Region Presidency condemns terrorist attack on Baghdad church". 11-02-2010. Retrieved 11-02-2010.
^ "Pope condemns Baghdad church attack". Sydney Morning Herald. November 1, 2010. Retrieved 1 November 2010.

^ "Pope denounces Baghdad church attack, urges peace". Washington Post. November 1, 2010. Retrieved 1 November 2010.

Peter said...

Hello Everybody,

the video is not available anymore, one can buy the podcast via 92Y or so, but I wont spend any money on an atheist, so if anyone downloaded it, pls re-upload it or send me a link where I can download it myself, thanx.

God bless you

Unknown said...

@fat man, perhaps the US shouldn't have helped Saddam get in power in the first place. Bad foreign policy=angry people.

Unknown said...

@fat man, perhaps the US shouldn't have helped Saddam get in power in the first place. Bad foreign policy=angry people.

Anonymous said...

Islam & Atheism are both a danger to our moral frame work. I hope Hitchens accepts Jesus and same with the Muslim man. I heard Hitchens has throat cancer he didn't look very healthy. Though I disagree with most everything Hitchens says most of the time I still pray for his health and his salvation.

Anonymous said...

@The Fat Man I see many Muslim's say Islam is a religion of peace then you question Muhammad and get a death threat. They are the oppressor and want to fool others into thinking they are the victim. They took over Spain and many other nations when Islam first started what did Spain do? Islam is a war machine bent on world domination.

Traeh said...

The Fat Man,
According to Quran 9:29, jihad is not just in self-defense against oppressors. Quran 9:29 says to fight those who do not believe in Islam. Anyone who says jihad is merely in self-defense is either lying or ignorant.

However, Robert Spencer has sometimes said, I think, that according to Islamic law, offensive jihad cannot be declared except by the caliph. Since there is no caliph today, Islamic law says there can be no offensive jihad. But for the Islamic texts, "oppression" is defined so broadly that the mere presence of non-Muslims can be considered oppression, and jihad in "self-defense" can be justified in response to the mere existence of non-Muslims, whose refusal of Islam amounts to fitna or "mischief in the land." If I recall right, Ibn Kathir says as much about that phrase. And we know what Muhammad and Allah decreed for those who commit "mischief in the land."

otto said...

Why are all these debates being taken down?

vonbrucken said...

Christopher Hitchens vs. Tariq Ramadan
Here is the full video I think :
(with embed code )