The most popular defence of Islam that can be seen on YouTube today is by Mehdi Hasan in his Oxford Union debate on the topic ‘Is Islam a peaceful religion?’ Mehdi Hasan is one of the most arrogant Islamic apologists seen today, but don’t expect to see anything actually linked to Islam (by Mehdi’s own criteria) appear in Mehdi Hasan’s defence of his religion. Not once does he present any Islamic scripture. While you might think such a travesty of a defence is easy meat for a rebuttal, the video has 5.3 million views on YouTube and has ample praise in the comments, so is more than worth our time.
The context to Mehdi’s speech is as a pseudo-rebuttal itself, to Anne-Marie Waters and Daniel Johnston’s previous speeches as part of the three-versus-three debate. The negative side was extremely poor, too, never presenting relevant Islamic scriptural evidence to make the case that Islam was not peaceful. The debate ended with a vote from the house that Islam is a peaceful religion.
Mehdi Hasan first proclaims to be a representative and ambassador of Islam, and then proceeds to obliterate most of his own argument by claiming that terror attacks such as the Bali bombings, 7/7 and the murder Theo van Gogh, are linked to Islam solely because of the Islamic identity of the attacks, and that this identity is irrelevant without actual evidence linking the attacks to Islam. I would agree. Those attacks do not prove anything in themselves. Hasan’s opponents’ arguments were very poor. It’s a shame the opposition didn’t involve a skilled debater or speaker who could have addressed the Islamic sources and shown that all of those events resulted from Allah’s direct commands.
Mehdi’s problem in slapping away anecdotal evidence is that his entire presentation relies on anecdotal evidence. His entire speech is almost completely devoid of substance. Hasan shoots the opposition down for the claim that Islam was born in Saudi Arabia, which is simply picky, as Mecca and Medina are located in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Then he goes on to make a facile comment about Muhammad al-Khwarizmi’s mathematical accomplishments being the reason that Daniel Johnston could use his computer via algorithms. I may have to remind you at this point that this speech was supposed to be devoted to showing that Islam is a peaceful religion.
But since Hasan speaks of maths, it is worth noting that Allah may need to seek help from Muhammad al-Khwarizmi. In Surah 4:11-12, he divides inheritance fractions in a way so that they amount to more than one. We read Allah reveal through Muhammad: ‘Allah commands you, concerning your children, to the male the like portion of two females; so if there were more than two females, so they will have two thirds of that which their father left. And, if she was one [daughter], she will have the half, and to his parents to every one of them a sixth part of what he left if there was to him a [surviving] son. So, if he had no son and his parents are his heirs, so his mother will have the third; so if there was to him brothers, so to his mother the sixth after any will was made for it or any debts. [As] to your fathers or your children, you know not which of them is the closest to you in usefulness. [This] is the ordinance of Allah. Surely Allah was knowing, wise. And you will have half of what your wives leave if there was no son to them; so if there was a son to them, then a fourth of what they leave will be yours after any will was made for it or any debts. And your wives will have a fourth part of what you leave if there was no son to you; but if there was a son, then they will have an eighth part of what you leave after any will you made for it or any debts. And if a man or a woman bequeaths, was lacking [heirs], and he has a brother or sister, so to each of them the sixth; so if there were more than this, so they will be sharers in a third after any will was made for it or any debts without loss to anyone. [This] is a command from Allah. And Allah is knowing, forbearing.’ Let’s say a man leaves £12,000. His three daughters would get £8,000. The parents would get one sixth each, so £2,000 each. The wife, who left three daughters, would get £3,000, which amounts to £15,000, more than is possible. While al-Khwarizmi was a fantastic mathematician and thinker, it doesn’t seem he learned those skills from the Qur’an.
Mehdi Hasan then goes on to suggest that Islam’s Golden Age of science helped bring about the renaissance, but as can be seen in this video, most of the so-called Golden Age is nothing more than a period of subjugation and war. The Qur’an is actually a litany of silliness in the scientific realm, and while the Bible and God’s mystery launched the real Golden Age of science, the Qur’an held back Muslims in this area. We find in the Qur’an that semen is formed between the backbone and the ribs in Surah 86:6-7, the earth is flat in Surah 88:20 (hence the command to always face the mosque, despite impossibility of this on a globe, in Surah 2:149), the Sun and Moon are in orbit and pass each other in Surah 21:33 as well as Surah 91:1-2, and milk is created between blood and faeces in Surah 16:66, among hundreds of other scientific errors. Again, similar to the maths, the Qur’an is not a bastion of scientific information, and anyway Hasan’s discussion of science proves absolutely nothing about Islam being peaceful.
Hasan’s deception continues when he says that anti-Semitism in the Middle East was imported from Judeo-Christian culture in the West and that this culture was also to blame for the Holocaust, which Islam would have prevented. Once again, Mehdi could not hope to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion by asserting the Judeo-Christian culture is the source of evil acts, but for some reason he persists in discussing irrelevant points.
Despite calling the ascribing of the actions of followers to their religion without clear evidence of a connection a ‘gutter game’, Hasan proceeds to discuss the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, colonialism and more as reflecting upon Christianity. But until Mehdi can show that the wrongdoing that was committed was called for and justified in Christian scripture, his argument is again irrelevant, and is the same argument he decries when it comes from his opponents. He then invalidates all these comparisons by saying ‘he’s not going to play that game’. Does this mean Mehdi will move on to actually proving Islam is a peaceful religion? No.
Hasan says that Islam, Christianity and every mainstream religion is based on love, compassion and faith, but cannot cite relevant Islamic scripture for this claim. There is no Islamic scripture that preaches love or compassion for unbelievers. While Allah is referred to as merciful and compassionate, this does not match his commands. We see Allah hates those who do not believe and even intentionally hardens the hearts of some so that they do not believe.
Mehdi acknowledges the Qur’an has verses about warfare, but this is a straw man. The accusation is that Allah’s perfect, direct, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved word, the Qur’an, commands believers to engage in war with unbelievers and kill many people for varying different reasons in varying different ways. You can see an entire documentary film, ‘Art Of Imposture’, devoted to showing this on my website, Islam Refuted.
On the basis of a baffling claim by Professor Robert Pape that the majority of suicide bombings, which usually involve the bomber praising Allah, are not by Muslims, and those that are by Muslims are responses to the military intervention in their homeland, Hasan says that his opponents for this debate have one thing in common with terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden: they agree that Islam is a warlike religion, in contrast to mainstream Muslims. This is the genetic fallacy. It is irrelevant how many Muslims think Islam is peaceful. Whether they agree, don’t agree, change their mind or do not care, Islam will remain either peaceful or non-peaceful based on its teachings. All his anecdotal polls are useless and irrelevant to the question at hand.
In his next segment, Mehdi discusses fatwas denouncing terrorism from Islamic scholars, among them Sheikh Afifi al-Akiti of Oxford University. Hasan says ‘you don’t go out and kill people willy-nilly in the high street… based on verses of the Qur’an that you cherry pick without any context, any understanding, any interpretation or any commentary’. I’d like to look through Surah 9 with Hasan and discuss with him its relevance according to the greatest Qur’an commentator of all time, Ibn Kathir. According to Ibn Kathir, ‘All people of the world shall be called to Islam. If any one of them refuses to do so or refuses to pay the Jizya, they should be fought till they are killed’. Al-Tabari, a similarly highly regarded commentator, says in 9:69 that ‘Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us’.
In part two, we will finish examining Mehdi’s speech and move on to my positive case that Islam is not a peaceful religion.
Dude says
Of course it’s peaceful. They send all the murderers, thieves, slave-drivers, rapists into neighbouring societies to murder, rape, rob, enslave for god over there.
DUH
James says
When an Islamist claims that Islam is a religion of peace, they are being deceptive. Sure there will be peace, once every atheist, polytheist, and non-believer is forcibly converted to Islam or murdered. Once the opposition has been murdered, there will be peace. It’s the “peace” offered by all murderous dictators. Islam’s defenders always speak with a forked tongue.
Muslim says
Worry about COVID the invisible enemy
gravenimage says
In other words, ignore the fact that pious Muslims want to murder you, because there are other threats out there.
Good to know that pious Muslim is comparing his own vicious creed to a deadly global pandemic–that seems apt…
The existence of Covid-19–and Ebola, and AIDS, and flesh-eating bacteria, et al–don’t make Islam any less deadly, though.
andrew mckendrick says
Worry more about Koranovirus ,the visible ugly virus invading Europe now.
Jayell says
According to figures I’ve seen, 92% of terrorist attacks worldwide are islam-related. That, plus the huge catalogue of violence prescribed in the Qur’an, identifies islam as an aggressive, violent ideology. Islamic apologists in the UK usually try to answer these charges by attacking Christianity and trying to claim that the Christian religion is as bad as islam, citing the crusades and other instances of violent behaviour committed by various groups in the name of ‘Christianity’. One such example is Northern Ireland, where muslims will gleefully point at the criminal antics of ‘Protestants’ and ‘Catholics’ to whitewash themselves; and in so doing, reveal their complete dishonesty and total ignorance of both the Christian Bible and Irish history, They demonstrate (or feign) ignorance of the facts that (a) at no time did Jesus Christ or his Apostles promote sectarianism, but preached against it, (b) at no time did Jesus Christ or his apostles prescribe any kind of physical violence but preached the exact opposite, and (c) trying to use the Northern Irish situation as an example of the Christian Creed in action totally ignores the fact that it was purely political and based on ancient tribal rivalries which just happened to involve Protestantism and Catholicism as features of tribal identity. But muslims never let factual or historical accuracy get in the way of their devious attempts at self-promotion. Indeed if the facts go against them, they ignore them; and if there aren’t any facts to support them, they make them up.
mortimer says
Koran 48:29 is a verse that clearly and unmistakably, perhaps even deliberately, contradicts the Golden Rule:
Koran 48.29 – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Those with him are VIOLENT (ashiddaa’) against the unbelievers (kufaar),
Compassionate amongst themselves.”
“Muhammadun Resoulu-llaahi, wa-ladhiina ma’ahu ashidda’u ‘ala-l kuffaari, ruhama’u baynahum.” Koran 48:29
ETYMOLOGY OF the Arabic Word ‘ASHIDDAA’
The Arabic (aSHiddaa3u) word covers a very broad semantic field and the specific meaning depends on the context in which the word is used. Its usual meanings include powerful, sharp, ardent, extreme, strong, intensive, rigorous, severe, vehement, quick, violent, and vigorous. The above adjectives make the ayat even more severe and discriminatory. If the verse in question is to be understood in the context of self-defense against physical attacks by unbelievers, then words like harsh, terrible, implacable are probably correct.
A recurring theme in the Qur’an is opposition to disbelievers and mutual support within the community of Muslim believers. There may be, however, a problem with the translation of this verse. The key word is rendered as “harsh” in some versions. Other translators use other words. Yusuf ‘Ali uses “strong”. Rodwell uses “vehement”. Dawood uses “ruthless”. Palmer uses “vehement”. Pickthall uses “hard”. In French, Grosjean uses “dur” (harsh or hard) and Kasimirski uses “terrible”. Ben Mahmoud uses “implacable”.
But in any context, the ayat implies the application of a double standard whenever one is wronged by a non-believer as opposed to a believer. Moreover, the Koran’s many verses commanding warfare against the disbelievers BECAUSE they are disbelievers (K.9.5) give the context of ‘ashidaa’, as does Sharia law: Quote … “Duty to fight disbelievers. “The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” from Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller (Sharia law manual).
VIOLENT … ASHIDAA
Michael Copeland says
“Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar (infidels).
Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed.
So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other.
So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar. Like in Syria.”
Erdogan
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24727
mortimer says
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the MOST WARLIKE RELIGION.
After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and fighting “to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.”
“What is striking is not in itself that one can find murderous passages in the Islamic texts, as such passages can also be found in other religions. But it is striking how much space these passages take up in the Islamic texts, and how much they focus on an us-and-them logic in which infidels and apostates are characterized as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical and dangerous. It is also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and with the sword. In many passages, Muhammad plays a central role as one who encourages the use of violence, whether it comes to stonings, beheadings, acts of war or execution of critics and poets.”
Tina Magaard finds it particularly objectionable that so many Islamic scholars in her opinion knowingly fail to disclose these facts, and use their positions of power to create specific standards for what you can say. Often, they also blame Danish racism rather than objectively stating that extremists actually find justifications for using violence and threats in Islam’s holy scriptures.
abad says
Islam is a very violent religion.
Islam is also the only religion that has Jihad, encourages suicide in the name of “Allahu Akhbar” using a suicide belt, and worships the Devil.
john smith says
It was nice of him to pull open his jacket, to show that he wasn’t wearing a suicide belt.I’d of certainly felt a lot more comfortable after that.
Keys says
Dr Bill Warner’s map on Muslim unpeaceful jihad expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
gravenimage says
Yes–an important and ugly map.
Khushi says
Thanks for this video.
Rob R (Brit stuck in Britainistan) says
I always absolutely hated Hasan when he was in Britain.
He is so ugly he looks like a boxer who lost every fight he was ever in, but he lacks any of the actual vaguely sympathetic/likable character that such a man would have.
And of course the sense of humour/humanity…whatever. Total psycho, barely even pretends to be a “moderate”, he would burn your family in front of you.
What is he doing now, presenting on MSNBC or Al Jazeera, I honestly cant remember and he’s not worth googling.
Miguel Ángel says
Graciously appreciated once again. Thank you dearly Robert Spencer & those of you who help people like myself understand more of this so called religion of peace. This stronghold of evil over the world must be broken; by your great works & those of equal mindset and knowledge of ‘facts and truths’ to expose their agenda.. I don’t believe in coincidence. I don’t do social media platforms, only use YouTube, but this was put in my path just at the right time, to show me I am not just a person with resentment and that I am racist just because I do not agree with the BLM, for example. And because I dont trust muslims (due to personal experience) & beliefs I had internally, i was losing hope altogether that nobody had the ability to expose them. And then I find this. and now this is like the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Where I know what evils they commit and are hidden by the MSM & left in my country. And jihadi watch has led me on to view other things on YouTube to widen my knowledge. I wish you good health and pray that you keep safe Robert. From glasgow
Michael Copeland says
See “The Mindset Need” and “Islam’s Agenda: Muslims Speak” at Gates of Vienna:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2014/10/the-mindset-need/
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/02/islams-agenda-muslims-speak/?
gravenimage says
Islam is Not a Peaceful Religion: A Rebuttal of Mehdi Hasan (Part 1)
……………….
Another fine takedown of Islamic Taqiyya from Isaac Marshall.
Isaac Marshall says
Thank-you! 🙂
David says
It was surprising that Anne Marie Waters did not put up a better case, and also that the audience was hoodwinked by the snake tongue of M H. Unbelievable that they voted Islam is ‘peaceful’. A poor result.
Isaac Marshall says
I cover a bit in part two what I thought of the debate but you’re spot on. The anti-Islam side were extremely poor, putting up an almost solely anecdotal case filled with the genetic fallacy. Mehdi and co certainly won the debate because all they had to do was knock down fallacious arguments. Mehdi did present arguments that were fallacious in exactly the same way but the opposition couldn’t even address them. In part two I write a simplified skeleton version of what my case would have looked at but it’s a shame Oxford didn’t pick subject-literate speakers instead of the more culturally involved guys. It speaks volumes that people think Douglas Murray and these debaters are the best authority on these matters.
gravenimage says
I wish more civilized Infidels were good debaters. This is important.
Warren Raymond says
Mehdi Hasan’s da’awa song & dance performance with Ann-Marie Waters is a classic example of oriental salesmanship, obfuscation, pure bullsh*t & lies. It was, as Rober Spencer would say, a steaming pile of taqiyya. For a non-scholar like Ann-Marie Waters it is difficult, in fact for any Western thinker rooted in logic & common sense, it is difficult to make any sense of Hasans mental acrobatics. Try to get your head around his historical nonsense, the outrageous lies & equivocations he invokes!
I felt sorry for AMW having to endure such a barrage of nonsense. But that’s enough for Hasan to beat his chest and declare himself the winner. And the audience fell for it. His brazeness, his audacity & his absurdity won the day.
Isaac Marshall says
That’s a good summary. It is regrettable Oxford picked the line-up they did for the opposition. I don’t know if this is because they have no idea who the prominent debaters and speakers are or whether they deliberately picked such a weak line-up.
James says
“Muslim,” you worry about Covid 19 yourself.
James says
gravenimage, don’t sweat “Muslim.” He had to attack me with a non sequitur because he knows that what I wrote is the truth about Islam. My first thought about his reply was, Really, that’s all you got? My second thought was, What does that have to do with the price of tea?
gravenimage says
Yes, Muslim is pretty sad, James. Like all Muslim apologists here, he cannot really debate. For instance, doesn’t he realize that comparing his foul creed to a deadly disease is not exactly a good strategy?