A debate on April 15, 2008 hosted by the show Intelligence Squared put forth the premise "Islam is Dominated by Radicals." On the "pro" side appeared Daveed Garten-Stein Ross, Paul Marshall and Asra Nomani. On the "con" were Reza Aslan, Richard Bulliet and Edina Lekovic.
When the audience was polled with the following (paraphrased) question, upon entering the debate, the numbers were thus:
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Islam is dominated by radicals?
43% agreed
32% disagreed
22% were undecided
After the debate, the numbers stacked up as follows:
73% agreed
23% disagreed
4% were undecided
During the debate, a number of shocking points were made by the "pro" team, using statistics concerning what is actually happening in the world today, including Islamic law in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as how much money is being spent worldwide to spread "radical" Islamic fundamentalism that abides by these appalling laws. One point raised by Paul Marshall was that Iran has now recently proposed legislation that would make heresy and apostasy a capital offense even outside of Iran, meaning that, in Marshall's words, "Under Iranian law, Barack Obama should be executed as an apostate."
We are reminded that the "radical" Muslims are not only quite willing to kill and die for their cause, but they are "well funded, often by Saudi Arabia." We can look towards Saudi Arabia, in fact, for an example of a "true Islamic state," according to them, of course. There, Marshall informs us, the terms "human rights" and "democracy" are considered to be "un-Islamic terminology." Saudi Arabia's long brutal and oppressive history verifies this notion that human rights in that country are un-Islamic.
Marshall also reminds us that in Iran if you murder someone from an "unrecognized religion," such as the Bahai faith, you will not be punished. The life of a human being who is not a member of a recognized religion is as worthless as that of a dog or cat in Iran.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are in competition to spread their "radical" version of Islam around the world," the Saudis spending at least $3 billion a year on missionary causes.
We also hear about the millions of people who have died in the past few decades because of "radical" Islam being introduced into their countries, such as in Pakistan and Nigeria. This radicalization is happening even in moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.
As concerns the "cons," one of the first comments out of Reza Aslan serves to establish the superiority of Islam, insulting the intelligence of the people in the audience at the same time (apparently because they are NOT Muslim): "So, I suppose it's not surprising that a large percentage in this room would believe that Islam - unquestionably the most eclectic, the most diverse religion in the history of the world - is dominated by radicals. After all, no field work or research is necessary to come to such a conclusion, just turn on your television...."
Yes, "unquestionably" is the correct term here, since questions are not encouraged within Islam. And how do total submission to Allah and the compulsion to pray five times a day constitute "diversity?"
Moreover, those who are speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have often been in the heart of it, not just sitting in front of the boobtube, mindlessly watching propaganda films.
Aslan continues in the same vein, stating that the cartoons that cause people to riot are "deliberately provocative." (Can't you hear it now: "Your honor, she was wearing a miniskirt, so I had to rape her.") Aslan also calls Geert Wilders a "racist," evidently because he doesn't want "radical" Islam to destroy his country or the world. (Reza apparently does not understand that Islam is NOT a race, as he, a darker-skinned Persian sits next to a white Muslim woman.) As a typical Muslim apologist, Aslan just cannot acknowledge that "radical" Islam is the source of violence and terror the world over. He couldn't possibly answer Marshall's factual recitation with a truly MODERATE statement like, "Yes, that doesn't sound very good, and I do not support those things within Islam." No, he immediately started insulting people, in a typically aggressive Muslim manner.
In the fourth clip, in response to a question by Garten-Stein Ross, Aslan essentially proves the point about every devout Muslim potentially being "radical," when he asserts that Islam is not "just a religion" but an identity, and that an attack on Islam is an attack on him personally which would warrant violence. In his response, in fact, Aslan seems to start shaking with anger at the very thought of "his" religion being assailed.
Re-wording a question from Daveed Garten-Stein Ross to ask, "Should I act violently in defense of my religion," the so-called "moderate" Reza Aslan responds, "ABSOLUTELY."
Is that not radical Islam in a nutshell?
It is my long-held stance that religious fanaticism is a form of psychopathy, and these responses merely verify my position. I personally hold that we are NOT "our" religion - indeed, they are not even OUR religions but are borrowed beliefs extending back to caveman days - and that becoming violent against a living, breathing human being over such an IDEOLOGY is in itself evil. In the end, my constant requests online since 1995 for people to DROP religious "isms" and "i(n)anities," and just be HUMAN BEINGS become even more urgent and meritable.
Back on the pro side, Asra Nomani gives us an insider's view about how even in the U.S. moderate Muslims are now being bombarded by radical Islam calling for the ostracism and oppression of non-Muslims.
Con speaker Edina Lekovic essentially admits that Islam does not belong to the 21st century and that electing a secular government is a good thing, as is "integration" (i.e., assimilation) for Muslims. Indeed, her remarks pretty much prove that Islam IS dominated by radicals, as she puts out the call for help to overpower them.
Daveed Garten-Stein Ross goes into factual detail about the lack of human rights and religious freedoms in Muslim countries, as well as the opinion, for example, of many Muslims in the West that Muslim apostates should be killed. Ross also nails home the point that Saudi Arabia is radical and that its ideology is being pushed all over the world, using oil money. He also addresses the fact that "mainstream" Muslim organizations are now attempting to shut down free speech worldwide, demonstrating their desire for hegemony.
Anyway, I could make comment throughout this debate - and I was doing so as I watched it - but this blog would then become very long.
In the end, the debate here was not whether or not Islam is a "great religion" but whether it is dominated by so-called radicals - who, it should be noted, consider themselves in fact to be the REAL Muslims and are, therefore, not "radical" at all.
The verdict is in: "Islam is dominated by radicals."
Following are some of the clips from this important debate. If you would like to see the rest of the 15 parts, including the free-for-all Q&A at the end, please go to YouTube.
Pro: Paul Marshall
Con: Reza Aslan
Debate: Garten-Stein Ross and Aslan
Pro: Asra Nomani
Con: Edina Lekovic
Pro: Daveed Garten-Stein Ross
For further reading:
'Islam Is Dominated By Radicals'
Note to Commenters: Before you write some hateful spew against Jews, read this website about Islam. If you haven't read my original article above and cannot prove to me that you have, I will not pass through your message. (BTW, mindless hatred of Jews is a sign of RADICAL Islam, so if no one but Jew-haters post here, they will be proving the point that Islam is dominated by radicals.)
