After participating in many debates with Muslim spokesmen over the years, I generally think they’re pointless. We’ll see if this one isn’t. Tune in here at 1PM Eastern on Saturday.
Comments
Frank Andersonsays
THERE IS A PRIMARY, FOUNDATIONAL DIFFERENCE between islam, Judaism and Christianity. Islam cannot change. Anyone who knows the least about Judaism KNOWS that it has changed over 3700 years and continues to change today. If you study the origin and development of Christianity, it has changed many times, often for the “better”.
One of the several teachings that attract me to the religion actually observed by Jesus is that wisdom is all around us; wherever it is in human control, there is some measure of error, deception or both; and that in order to reduce, but never eliminate the error in this lifetime, to ask every question repeatedly and often, even to the very existence of God. What use is a question if change is not allowed to follow an improved answer?
Islam is “final, perfect, complete and unchangeable” by its own terms. Any attempt to question, change, reform or moderate is blasphemy or apostasy punishable by death by any vigilante who can act with complete protection from legal penalties in many places.
A non-believer debating a believer is a waste. It is a classic demonstration of the “Soviet style” negotiating tactic, “What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” Negotiating or debating with someone who cannot compromise anything defies the best advice of professional negotiators for decades. Negotiating with anyone who openly admits that lying and deception are integral and fundamental teachings of their community is really self-defeating and a poor use of intellect.
God Bless Robert Spencer for the wisdom and insight he has added to my life.
Doomersays
I think one would have to define the word “violence”.
1.Robert Spencer will win if he says that violating human rights constitutes violence.
Not just military attacks.
The expression human rights is recent, it only appears in 1948.
2.Before everybody said “NATURAL rights” or “rights of man”. Natural rights=human rights.
3.In the Salamanca philosophical school in 16th century Spain, around the 1530s,founded by Catholic priest Francisco de Vitoria,
considered the father of International Law, he and his successors declared we all are BORN with 3 natural RIGHTS
( rights, not favors,not concessions to us ): to life, liberty and property.
Since we are all born with 3 natural rights, we are All Born Equal.
4.For them Natural is in reference to our Human NATURE, they, as priests, argued that the Bible says all,men and women, are in the Image of God,so Image of God= the nature of humans.
It appears in Genesis but also in the NT,in James 3:9:
“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse HUMAN BEINGS, who have been MADE in the IMAGE of GOD.”
5.However Islam denies humans are in the Image of God, and for that reason can violate ( therefore use violence ) ,in principle, the right to speech, religion,assembly,etc.
Based on his ideas Vitoria said things like that Spain nor any other country had the right to conquer ( take the Right to Property of others ) other lands
because of DIFFERENCE of RELIGION or to impose a religion,
and in war the attacks should be proportional to what was done by the attacker,
and in the right to interfere in another country for humanitarian reasons ( cannibalism,human sacrifice,etc), but interfere,not conquer,etc.
He also added the pope had No Right to divide the new world between Portugal and Spain in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.
Doomersays
Therefore Vitoria was against slavery, imperialism and colonialism.
Thus the Muslim debater can Not use that argument against Christianity.
Infidelsays
Naah, your discussions w/ others, like your one w/ Apostate Imam last week, are far more interesting
Kagmansays
Whatever violence is found among Christians, they do so in spite of the Bible, not because of it. The exact opposite is true regarding the outrage that is Islam.
Catholicism has Vatican 1 and 2 that repudiate violence and formally use analogy for what little violence is in the Bible.
Kagmansays
And really, who can believe any debating point made by Muslims??? They lie as a matter of course. it’s a religious edict found right in the Quran.
Wang Wei Linsays
I predict one of four outcomes. 1. Hashmi will cancel or not show up. 2. Hashmi will resort to ad hominen attacks or 3. Hashmi will quit the debate before its conclusion or 4. A combination of 2 and 3.
overmansays
A religion so peaceful, you have to be forced to stay in it under the threat of death..
Hashmi is well miked and speaks with a clear voice. Spencer is poorly miked, which makes it a strain to listen to his muffled voice. Too bad.
Paulsays
I enjoyed this debate, it did get heated in places but on the whole it was quite respectful both ways. I learnt a lot and recommend all readers give this a full listen. Robert more than held his own. He didn’t pull any punches; his closing speech was brutal, if I were a Muslim it would have been very hard to hear.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Frank Anderson says
THERE IS A PRIMARY, FOUNDATIONAL DIFFERENCE between islam, Judaism and Christianity. Islam cannot change. Anyone who knows the least about Judaism KNOWS that it has changed over 3700 years and continues to change today. If you study the origin and development of Christianity, it has changed many times, often for the “better”.
One of the several teachings that attract me to the religion actually observed by Jesus is that wisdom is all around us; wherever it is in human control, there is some measure of error, deception or both; and that in order to reduce, but never eliminate the error in this lifetime, to ask every question repeatedly and often, even to the very existence of God. What use is a question if change is not allowed to follow an improved answer?
Islam is “final, perfect, complete and unchangeable” by its own terms. Any attempt to question, change, reform or moderate is blasphemy or apostasy punishable by death by any vigilante who can act with complete protection from legal penalties in many places.
A non-believer debating a believer is a waste. It is a classic demonstration of the “Soviet style” negotiating tactic, “What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” Negotiating or debating with someone who cannot compromise anything defies the best advice of professional negotiators for decades. Negotiating with anyone who openly admits that lying and deception are integral and fundamental teachings of their community is really self-defeating and a poor use of intellect.
God Bless Robert Spencer for the wisdom and insight he has added to my life.
Doomer says
I think one would have to define the word “violence”.
1.Robert Spencer will win if he says that violating human rights constitutes violence.
Not just military attacks.
The expression human rights is recent, it only appears in 1948.
2.Before everybody said “NATURAL rights” or “rights of man”. Natural rights=human rights.
3.In the Salamanca philosophical school in 16th century Spain, around the 1530s,founded by Catholic priest Francisco de Vitoria,
considered the father of International Law, he and his successors declared we all are BORN with 3 natural RIGHTS
( rights, not favors,not concessions to us ): to life, liberty and property.
Since we are all born with 3 natural rights, we are All Born Equal.
4.For them Natural is in reference to our Human NATURE, they, as priests, argued that the Bible says all,men and women, are in the Image of God,so Image of God= the nature of humans.
It appears in Genesis but also in the NT,in James 3:9:
“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse HUMAN BEINGS, who have been MADE in the IMAGE of GOD.”
5.However Islam denies humans are in the Image of God, and for that reason can violate ( therefore use violence ) ,in principle, the right to speech, religion,assembly,etc.
Based on his ideas Vitoria said things like that Spain nor any other country had the right to conquer ( take the Right to Property of others ) other lands
because of DIFFERENCE of RELIGION or to impose a religion,
and in war the attacks should be proportional to what was done by the attacker,
and in the right to interfere in another country for humanitarian reasons ( cannibalism,human sacrifice,etc), but interfere,not conquer,etc.
He also added the pope had No Right to divide the new world between Portugal and Spain in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.
Doomer says
Therefore Vitoria was against slavery, imperialism and colonialism.
Thus the Muslim debater can Not use that argument against Christianity.
Infidel says
Naah, your discussions w/ others, like your one w/ Apostate Imam last week, are far more interesting
Kagman says
Whatever violence is found among Christians, they do so in spite of the Bible, not because of it. The exact opposite is true regarding the outrage that is Islam.
Catholicism has Vatican 1 and 2 that repudiate violence and formally use analogy for what little violence is in the Bible.
Kagman says
And really, who can believe any debating point made by Muslims??? They lie as a matter of course. it’s a religious edict found right in the Quran.
Wang Wei Lin says
I predict one of four outcomes. 1. Hashmi will cancel or not show up. 2. Hashmi will resort to ad hominen attacks or 3. Hashmi will quit the debate before its conclusion or 4. A combination of 2 and 3.
overman says
A religion so peaceful, you have to be forced to stay in it under the threat of death..
Relic says
pointless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxwF-6y0KpA
gravenimage says
Debate: ‘Religion of Peace? Is Islam More Violent Than Christianity?’
…………
Amazing that Robert Spencer has found a Muslim willing to debate him–most are too intimidated these days. Hashmi used Berkeley as a base for a while.
He is on about this on his Twitter feed. By the way, he is for Iran developing nukes. No surprise there.
https://twitter.com/drjavadthashmi
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hashmi is well miked and speaks with a clear voice. Spencer is poorly miked, which makes it a strain to listen to his muffled voice. Too bad.
Paul says
I enjoyed this debate, it did get heated in places but on the whole it was quite respectful both ways. I learnt a lot and recommend all readers give this a full listen. Robert more than held his own. He didn’t pull any punches; his closing speech was brutal, if I were a Muslim it would have been very hard to hear.