The debate was this afternoon. Dr. Hashmi, as you’ll see if you watch to the end, apparently thought that the question at hand was “Is the United States more violent than Islam?”. The debate was wide-ranging, covering a large expanse of Christian history and the question of its relevance, and the unanswered questions of why Christianity is not violent today while there is so much violence in Islam. Much of the usual arrogance and condescension from Islamic apologists is on display, but to what effect is an open question.
After the debate, Hashmi outed himself as someone who has been accused of theft and fraud.
Steve says
Did anyone noticed that Robert’s voice, and only Robert’s voice, is distorted, often, whenever there is an exchange? It’s frustrating.
End PC says
Also this YouTube debate site SHADOW BANS! My comments did not appear. Check you comment on another browser.
raja says
Robert Spencer spoke unambiguously that there has been zero terrorist attack by Christianity. When was his voice distorted?
somehistory says
The dr looked very uncomfortable…kept twisting his lips and drinking water. Guess it was difficult on his mozlum soul to listen to the Truth being explained which showed him he is wrong.
Graham Bryant says
The muslim fellow worships allah of the quran who is an idol god non-existent!! And the Lord God shall judge islam in his wrath to come and sooner than you think!!
somehistory says
Sooner than **I** think? I have long thought **today**…every day, I think **today** The Bible says not to be “putting off the Day of Jehovah,” so I think, **today**
Hasn’t happened yet, but it will. Probably will still startle me.
Johnny B says
Even though we can never agree with an individual like Dr. Hashmi with his all his many, many points or “facts” making it almost impossible to come with sensible answers to all of them in such a short amount of time, I still think it’s worthwhile to have dialogs like this with Muslim apologists. If you listen to dr. Hashmi much of what he said were classic straw man arguments that are all over the place which is a clear sign, that he really don’t have much actual facts to support his case. I do think he was on to something, though, when he addressed the American warfare strategy in the Middle East. I haven’t been a fan either but never thought of it as a “Crusade” in the true sense of the word. Some of the military campaigns have certainly been called for while others have extended far beyond what was reasonable. That was certainly the case in Afghanistan, as it became an experiment to see if it was possible to implement democracy and facilitate western style institution building in a Muslim country; of course it wasn’t. There are some wild theories out there that “hawks” in the American administration are really motivated by their religious world views. Apparently they should have this idea, that Jesus will not return until there is a Christian kingdom spanning the whole world and it’s up to Christians to facilitate that. I’m sure there are some even in the military, but seriously, I think we’re deep inside the conspiracy-department, if we seriously think they are that well connected and powerful to pull of something like that. I don’t buy it and I don’t think CIA “runs” ISIS or Al-Qaeda either. I don’t particular trust many of these so called Intelligence Agencies but that has more to do with the fact that there are tremendous financial resources flowing through many of them and there are many different interests represented there. But to think it has anything to do with Christianity, again these are just silly conspiracies.
Doomer says
Hashmi has made several videos about, he latest was about the Harris Sultan-Daniel Haqiqatjou debate about Sharia vs Human Rights,it is 51 min.
https://youtu.be/eSvDGA71O9A
He ends saying Islam’s respect for human beings is a foundation for saying Islam is in favor of human rights.
However in Islamic history some 11 million Africans were bought,70% were women, and usually the black men were CASTRATED.
I am taking a “deep dive” regarding the history of the West and African slavery. The NY Times has its 1619 Project saying the US began in 1619 based on “slavery”.
1.First,for centuries the North American Indian tribes practiced slavery.Read “Slavery in Indian Country:The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America” (2012) by Christina Snyder.
2.In 1619 slavery in the Virginia and England was ILLEGAL . That is why when they got 20 Africans from the Dutch it could ONLY be as indentured servants for 7 years. That was legal in Virginia law.
3.It was taken from the Law of Moses,literally. There if you were in debt you became a “slave” for 7 years. But you were to be fed and housed and treated well.
4.After the 7 years you were to be,according to Mosaic Law, given many gifts by the master.
So in English law,after 7 years ,all indentured servants, were to be a) given money, or b) land.
Ok,so one of those 20 Africans was ANTHONY JOHNSON (1600-1670) from Angola,who was captured by Africans of a different tribe and sold.
After 7 years he was freed and given land,and started a tobacco plantation. Later they changed Virginia and English laws and legalized slavery. And guess what Johnson
became a slave-owner of Africans,
and in a legal case concerning an African he possessed called JOHN CASOR,in 1654, Johnson won, and Casor became his slave FOR LIFE ( it was a first in American legal history). Before,slavery was temporary.
A bad turn 100% for the worst,not worse, but Worst, since in English law slaves were 100% property, no rights at all,nothing,zero.
The master could rape a slave, kill a slave, separate families,etc.
While in the Code Noir of France (1685) slaves had certain rights, and masters could be legally punished,for example a master had no right to rape a slave,(but not the right to buy his freedom).
The most liberal was that of the Spanish possessions: it was the most liberal and a slave had 4 rights nowhere in any other Western code:
1.Right to change to a better master.
2.To buy his freedom,at the LOWEST market price. It was called COARTADA,and a slave could go to a government official, demand a coartada,
the master would be called, sign a document. The slave would pay his freedom little by little. Plus,once signed, the master could Not Reject the coartada. It was definite.
When Brazil was ruled by the Spanish king(who was also king of Portugal,1580-1640) the coartada was introduced. Portugal began the slave trade in 1441, so for some 140 years plus, slaves according to Portuguese law
did not have the right to buy their freedom. They could receive freedom from a master, but not have the right to buy it.
3.Get married without the Permission of the Master ( in the French Code Noir, the master had to give permission )
4.The right to his own personal property,even as a slave, to his own money, and also the right to buy the freedom of his wife and children ( again, the coartada).
Doomer says
In addition in the early 17th century, the time when the French and English legalized slavery and had slaves in the Caribbean and the 13 colonies ( all of them),
a law was passed by Spain that said slaves from English and French colonies who
entered the Spanish-controlled lands were FREE (but on condition that they become Catholic).
For that reason many slaves in GEORGIA and other southern colonies,and Georgia was next to Florida, fled there (then part of Spain)
According to this article:
https://www.thoughtco.com/black-seminoles-4154463
“Black Seminoles were enslaved Africans and Black Americans who, beginning in the late 17th century, fled plantations in the Southern American colonies and joined with the newly-formed Seminole tribe in Spanish-owned Florida.
From the late 1690s until Florida became a U.S. territory in 1821,
thousands of Indigenous peoples and freedom seekers
fled areas of what is now the southeastern United States to the relatively open promise of the Florida peninsula.”
raja says
Doomer, The Old Testament was a curse, as no man (except Jesus) could keep the 613 laws, nonetheless it brings mankind to blessing in New Testament through Jesus Christ. Jesus lived in the Old Testament era and hence kept the Mosaic law. These things are rocket science to lots of people, a hunting a ground for Islamists.
I think it is futile debating with guys who are dishonest, which islam produces aplenty.
gravenimage says
Jews are not violent. Judaism is a civilized faith.
And one debates Muslims not to change their minds, which rarely happens, but in order to expose the dishonesty of Islam to the public.
Fitna says
Hashmi is a very tedious debater, but very typical of Muslim “scholars.” Robert conceded that Christianity was violent in the past and but that’s no longer true today due to the Reformation and Enlightenment and because of Christians going back to the teachings of Jesus.
Meanwhile Hashmi kept insisting he’d prove that Islam teaches equality for non-Muslims, all he came up with is that dhimmis had rights-ignoring the fact that a dhimmi is a subhuman class. Meanwhile he kept coming back to Christianity which got boring and repetitive very quickly.
Perhaps Robert was on wifi or he had a low-speed connection, because as soon as they’d cross talk, we only hear Hashmi’s voice while Robert’s was cut off. It could also be intentional.
To an objective observer this was a slam-dunk, Robert clearly made a good case and Hashmi has no answer except to pretend he did while being condescending and obnoxious towards Robert and also rudely interrupting mid-point, even though Hashmi just finished making his own rant for a few minutes uninterrupted.
It’d be hilarious if Robert used the same tactic that Austin Powers did when he was arguing with his son, when he was trying to get him to be quiet. People who’ve seen the movie know what I’m mean.
Most importantly, it’s patently obvious Islam is as violent today as it was 1400 years ago. It’s never had a reformation and never will. Islam is the problem and always has been. Christianity has evolved, become civilized and in some ways too passive, that should change.
somehistory says
The tactics of the one who is wrong…has no *case* or legs on which to stand…always interrupts, talks over, repeats and tries to change the argument when he sees he is losing the argument/and audience.
Any sane, reasonable person, has to see the violence in islam.
Christians have been criticized for being *too passive,* *milquetoasts,* etc.
If Christians had the habit of killing, using violence to get what they want, there would be other things said about their behavior.
True Christians, those who actually **know** the “mind of Christ,” which Paul explained, have never been violent, going out to kill, etc.
Those who fought in the Crusades against the marauding mozlums centuries ago, had reason to defend themselves, which is an entirely different thing than going forth to *conquer* as mozlums have always done.
True Christianity has been what it was from the beginning, hasn’t changed; knowledge of Jesus’ teachings and commands has become more abundant and clearer, but the teachings and commands are what they have always been.
People have changed; Christianity remains the same.
Fitna says
Exactly SH, these Muslim debaters are all pretty much alike. Though to be charitable, as annoying as Hashmi was, he was still more organized and respectful, at least in the beginning, than some other Muslims I’ve seen Robert debate.
But at the end of the day, despite his presentation and arguments, he simply failed to prove Christianity is as violent or worse than Islam. He completely skirted the issue of Islamic conquest of 55 countries. As Robert pointed out, how could you be defending yourself when you’re invading and killing infidels in places like India and Persia which never attacked Muslim lands.
Ya you’re right, people would have negative things to say about Christians if they were aggressive/violent. What I mean by passive is that in some places like Nigeria, Christians should be defending themselves but they aren’t. Everyone has that right.
Also the Pope has capitulated to Islam, he knows full well that Muslims are persecuting and killing Muslims but he refuses to speak out against it, meanwhile he washes the feet of Muslims, which is degrading and an insult to Christians being killed.
I support the Crusades for preventing Muslims from conquering Europe. In fact I think they’re sorely needed now.
Indeed Christianity has stayed the largely same but it’s also good that Christians have modernized themselves and rejected violent teachings, which were meant for the past conflicts anyways.
somehistory says
Fitna,
Since you have previously said you were once Christian,
have you ever contemplated things that have **helped** Christians to do as Christ said?
Such as, the roads the Romans built that allowed the Christians of that time to travel easier? Or the Greek language have a *common* Greek that was used for the regular people, which made Bible translations easier for the *common* person to understand? Or the printing press which came along when the need was so great for getting the Bible into the hands of more people, so many more could learn about Christ?
Each *generation* has had certain aspects that encouraged those who took up Christ’s “yoke” to keep their faith and do as He commanded?
Sometimes it is necessary to defend oneself against violence and sometimes …it is very difficult for a person who attempts to follow Christ and the way He lived and the things He taught, to think about taking up a weapon and going out to kill.
If the Christians in nigeria had weapons, though, they might not have to use them. At least not after the mozlums came to realize that they might meet a gun at the door they are invading.
Like the sign some people have on their front door about the dog that can get the intruder before the intruder can reach the gate. Can’t recall the exact words, but you may have seen it.
Fitna says
Somehistory, ya in a pre-scientific age, everyone was religious. Laws were more brutal and barbaric then. At the same time Christianity helped to advance science like Newton and Galileo, though as we know some opposed progress because it threatened their power over others.
I agree with what you’re saying in the 2nd. Jesus taught Pacifism largely, turn the other cheek and so forth. However there are times when one must defend oneself and their property or they will lose it.
Atheists and Christians probably share 90% of the same values or more, like love for freedom, equality, justice, etc. And while we disagree on some issues this is why we largely get along. I had some great experiences at church met some wonderful people.
At the same time I got into reading science, philosophy and other literature and I found that religion was narrow and outdated in many ways. Also I’ve always been scientifically minded and felt that religion didn’t answer what it claimed to so that’s why I left.
But ofc as you can tell from my posts, I still support Christianity since I believe it’s far superior to Islam and more humane, sensible. Plus this is a battle that we’re all in together against Islam.
Fitna says
*2nd paragraph
raja says
Fitna, In the early 90’s some Christians would have debate with Muslims and most often it was for mocking Christianity. The TV channel would go mute on any embarrassing counter points and sometimes there would be total blackout as it used be organized by Muslims.
They are such dishonest class. I have altered my American friends from debating Islamists, which they are well aware.
Doomer says
The argument by Hashmi about Jesus being violent omits that he is violent against an army of 200 million that killed
33% of humanity ( Rev 9:16-18 ) .It would be that of the Antichrist.
The Antichrist is worse than Hitler. It is not Jesus coming back killing civilians,but soldiers led by the Antichrist and the False Prophet, who want to kill him.
Plus in the Quran:
1.Christians are Cursed by Allah “until the Day of Resurrection” in sura 5:14.
Is that not violent,even worse, unjust? Why should Christians of today be cursed?
2.The Exact Same Thing,but for Jews in sura 5:64.
As for a General Law in the OT(Mosaic Law) , not an order for a Specific Situation in a Specific Time Period, that encourages reconciliation,there is
LEVITICUS 19:18: “Leviticus 19:18. “You will NOT take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your
OWN people, but you will love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”
And
Lev 19:34:
“You must treat the foreigner living among
you as native-born and love him as yourself,
for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
That is also known as the Golden Rule.And part of “love them as yourself” in Lev 19:34 would include the “You will NOT take vengeance or bear a grudge” of Lev 19:18.
Doomer says
Hashmi is wrong about details regarding Las Casas.DECADES before the Valladolid debate between Las Casas and Sepulveda in 1550.
1.In 1504 the Queen of Spain had established in her Last Testament that the property,land, and freedom
of natives in “the Indies” ( all the lands west of Europe), which at that time I think was still thought to be part of Asia, was to be respected.
2.Then due to the influence of Catholic priests,the Dominicans, who saw the abuse of natives in “the Indies”, the king of Spain created the LAWS of BURGOS in 1512.
Hashmi is wrong in saying the ENCOMIENDA system was slavery, the Laws of Burgos say the lands and properties of the natives are to be respected.
And BEFORE the Debate of Valladolid the encomienda system was abolished in the New Laws of the Indies (1542) but then reinstated because
the Spaniards in what is now Peru revolted,there was a civil war ( 1542-1549),the brother of Francisco Pizarro ( conqueror of Peru) ,Gonzalo Pizarro,declared himself KING of Peru,and even killed the viceroy (1548).
Even the Leftist wikipedia article “Laws of Burgos” says:
“They also established a minutely regulated regime of work, PAY, provisioning, living quarters, and diet.”
And:
“The document also prohibited the use of ANY FORM of PUNISHMENT by the encomenderos,
reserving it for officials established in each town for the implementation of the laws.”
And in 1513 the priests convinced the king of Spain to add even more laws that protected the natives.
In what sense is that slavery, and the Indians who worked for the Spaniards were to be PAID.
In the encomienda system it was limited to 40 and 150 natives.
LAW 24 says: “The Indians are NOT to be PHYSICALLY or VERBALLY ABUSED for Any Reason.”
Some of those laws are very,very specific, but designed to prevent abuses:
“Law 11: The Indians must not be used as carriers for transporting things to the Indians at the mines.”
” Law 14: The Indians must be allowed to perform their sacred dances.”
“Law 15: 15: All citizens who have Indians are required to feed them breads, yams, peppers, and on Sundays feed them dishes of cooked meat. For every offense, a fine of two gold pesos shall be paid.”
“Law 17: Sons of the chiefs of the Islands who are under the age of thirteen are to be given to the Friars so they can be taught how to READ, WRITE,
and other things about Catholicism. When the sons reach the age of nineteen, they are to return to the encomienda and teach the others.”
“18: Pregnant women are not to be sent to the mines or made to plant the crops. They shall be kept on the estate and made to do household duties such as cooking and weeding.
After the child is born, she can nurse it until it is three years old. After this time, she can return to the mines and other duties.
19: The Indians should not sleep on the ground. Each encomendero should provide his Indians with hammocks.
20: The Indians are to be given ONE GOLD PESO every year to pay for clothing.
21: Indians may not change their masters. One encomendero cannot employ or house an Indian belonging to another encomendero.
22: The Indian chiefs are allowed two Indians to perform personal duties for every forty of their subjects.
Also, visitors to the estates must TREAT the Indians WELL and teach them what they know of Catholicism.
23: Official inspectors must keep records of the activities and also the treatment of the Indians in the encomiendas.”
And later it says that the encomienda and encomendero will be INSPECTED to make sure the laws are respected:
“29: Two inspectors should be appointed to each Estate.”
And:
“31. Villages should be inspected two times a year, once in the beginning of the year, and once in the summer.
32: If there is a runaway Indian, inspectors can NOT apprehend them. They must be given to a man of good conscience who will find the Indians’ encomendero.
33: All inspectors should hold a copy of the Laws of Burgos, signed by the Governor.”
In 1513 four new laws were added due to the influence of Catholic priests,and Hashmi calls the encomienda system SLAVERY:
The last one says:
“4: After TWO YEARS of service, the Indians are FREE to GO. By this time they will be civilized and proper Christians, able to GOVERN THEMSELVES.”
And here are the first 2 new laws:
“1: Indian women MARRIED to Indian men are NOT to be forced to serve with their husbands at the MINES or ANYWHERE else
unless it is by their OWN FREE will or unless their husbands wish to take them.
2: Indian CHILDREN do NOT have to do the work OF ADULTS until the reach the age of fourteen.
They are THEN made to do the TASKS of CHILDREN, like weeding or working in their parents estates.”
Source:
“Laws of Burgos – Summary of Each Law”
https://www.liquisearch.com/laws_of_burgos/summary_of_each_law#:~:text=%20Laws%20of%20Burgos%20-%20Summary%20of%20Each,will%20be%20civilized%20and%20proper%20Christians%2C…%20More%20
livingengine says
Danios is easy to handle. Watch me do it here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rccyDxSPJx4
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, livingengine.
Doomer says
The Muslim quoted a papal bull of 1452, by Pope Nicholas V called “Dum Diversas”. It authorized Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. The Portuguese slave trade began in 1441.
It was be a PRE-Catholic Reformation pope. They were some very corrupt popes then,no morals. And a bit more about Las Casas and slavery.
However,does the Muslim know that the Most Important Philosopher of the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas,13th century,
who was Catholic, was AGAINST slavery. Which is the Stronger Theological Tradition, that of Aquinas or that of a corrupt Pope? Now Aquinas was for condemning Criminals to Forced Labor. But that is not the same as slavery.
ALSO this,which is important, the beginning of the slave trade was begun by the Portuguese in 1441:
6 YEARS before,a different pope Eugene IV in papal bull “Sicut Dudum” in 1435 said, in this article:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/popes-and-slavery-setting-the-record-straight-1119
“On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull . Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:
“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them….
Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously.
And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within
the space of fifteen days of the publication
of these letters in the place where they live, that they RESTORE to their PRISTINE LIBERTY
all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been MADE SUBJECT to SLAVERY ().
These people are to be TOTALLY and PERPETUALLY FREE and are to be let go WITHOUT the exaction or reception of any money.”
Some say the Pope ONLY meant Catholics who had been made slaves but that is to ignore that slavery in GENERAL had already been condemned
by Aquinas, the greatest Catholic philosopher and theologian of all time.
Las Casas had in 1516 recommended using African slaves to work in the encomienda, to protect the vanishing native population.
1.However what happened was Las Casas had been told that those Africans were CRIMINALS who had been bought.
2.Aquinas,for example, was in favor of FORCED Labor for criminals. So Las Casas,who was also a Dominican, thought it was ok, it would be criminals paying for their crimes.
3.Later, Las Casas learned the truth,that those Africans were unjustly taken by other African tribes and sold to the Portuguese. So Las Casas later condemned the African slave trade in his book
“History of the Indies” ( where he speaks of himself in the Third Person):
“‘This suggestion to issue a license to bring Negro slaves to the Indies was made first by the cleric Casas ,
not seeing how
UNJUST the PORTUGUESE were in taking slaves [on the coast of Africa]. Later on he realized
how UNJUSTLY and TYRANICALLY AFRICANS were taken slaves, in the same fashion as Indians.’”
Doomer says
When I said Las Casas thought the Africans bought by the Portuguese were criminals, he meant that AFRICANS of the African coast
had sold their Own Condemned Criminals,Rapists,Murderers,Robbers, of their own tribe,
to the Portuguese. In fact,in the beginning, the slaves bought by the Portuguese were the criminals of those African tribes, but then, they ran out of criminals to sell,
so those tribes attacked and captured and sold members of different tribes.
gravenimage says
After the debate, Hashmi outed himself as this scam artist.
……………….
I will have to watch the full debate later.
But did Javad Hashmi admit that he is “Danios” of LoonWatch? Amazing if I am reading this right. “Danios” has claimed to be an Atheist who dislikes *all* religion–yet he has been a regular apologist for Islam. If “Danios” is actually Hashmi this would explain *a lot*. It would also be another indication of just how dishonsts many Muslim apologists are.
Infidel says
Well, if Danios/Hashmi fleeced a number of muslims of $8000, good for him! Cash that may have otherwise gone into jihad has instead gone to a conman who’ll probably use it to pamper himself
As they say in islam, alhamdulillah, or ‘praise be to allah’ ?
livingengine says
Danios apologizes for teaching bigotry-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vosgIGNQKyU
livingengine says
Danios apologizes for teaching bigotry –
http://www.loonwatch.com/files/2013/09/you-were-right-i-was-wrong-danioss-mea-culpa/
gravenimage says
Kind of….he still has no problem lying about Christianity being intrinsically violent. And while he supposdly apologizes to Jews, he does not actually say that Judaism is not violent like Islam.
livingengine says
Thaaat’s Danios for you!
“Ivory Tower mind games”
gravenimage says
Yep.
Dan says
All that’s needed to settle this matter are to answer a few simple questions:
What is the standard of living in a Muslim country compared to a Christian country?
Are more Christians moving to Muslim countries to better their lives, or are more Muslims moving to Christian countries to better their lives?
And last…
How are Christians treated in Muslim countries compared to Muslims treated in Christian countries?
Hashmi can speak fully and freely here.
Robert Spencer would be executed, most likely by torture.
For public example.
Anjuli Pandavar says
The immediate cause of my leaving Islam was the brutality of the Muslims around me, in particular, my madrassa teacher’s brutal beating of his daughter for holding hands with a boy. That incident simply added to what I already felt about the staggering ignorance of the Muslims around me, and their shocking dishonesty. Only years after leaving Islam did I add arrogance as one of the undying traits. Why not earlier? Because earlier I did not see “learned” Muslims square off against learned others. Only then did I see just how arrogant Muslims can be. Dr Hashmi reminds me of how right I had been. Had I remained a Muslim, the chances are that I would have ended up like him, faced with the impossible task of justifying the unjustifiable. What avenues are open to him, except violence, lying and arrogance? What a tragic waste.
Keys says
Thank you for posting your personal experience.
“Had I remained a Muslim, the chances are that I would have ended up like him, faced with the impossible task of justifying the unjustifiable.”
The worst of all deceptions is self deception. – Plato
somehistory says
Happy to hear you made it out. Hopefully, more will think as you did and get out.
gravenimage says
Anjuli, thanks for your account. You are a brave and principled woman.
raja says
+1
staffsgt7 says
moslems always think they win. They are terrible at debates and their ‘winning’ is all in their minds.
staffsgt7 says
The guy starts out with all the wars – ironically, that was over 2,000 years ago. And God didn’t need the Jews to kill for Him, He did it for Himself when the population was so vile. islamic violence goes on to this day and allah needs its followers to kill for it if they don’t worship it.
The guy also needs to define ‘religious persecution’ since it is just refusing to be a moslem AND they are unable to handle criticism and even ridicule even though their koran, and sunnah, do it to other’s religions and also the name calling in their koran shows that they ridicule also. The guy is a hypocrite in what he choses to show.
One thing I always notice when moslems bring up the violence that is recorded, the historical verses that apply to those at the time past, is that they never read the whole chapter to find out that it is historical. AND one last thing concerning this is that they think we are not to defend ourselves. They attack, then we defend ourselves. We give their countries money and what do they do? Attack us, come to our country and their imams and others teach that their violence is the most holiest of jihads and even celebrate after their jihadists murder others.
I have said this many times – if a moslem says there is no offensive jihad taught – then he needs to go and preach that to his own… if he is not afraid of dying as an apostate.
The moslem needs to take his own advice and read about his own history and texts, not the propaganda that the Muslim Brotherhood members/front groups push.
The moslems are continuously using that tiring excuse of the Crusades too – they just can’t handle that their victims fought back and if it wasn’t for the Catholics, Europe would have been a poophole of islam but it seems that it might turn out that way anyway. AND wherever islam does thrive, they commit genocides against innocents that happen to accept subjugation and make their numbers dwindle to zero or almost nothing.
Unfortunately, the moslem you are talking to is not listening but looking at what he is going to say next.
eduardo odraude says
I am not that clear about the precise question being debated. Is Islam more violent than Christianity — does this mean “Are Islamic teachings more violent than Christian teachings?” Because while the debate description suggests that meaning, it also seems to suggest the question whether societies that are populated by Muslims (many of whom will not be following much of Islamic teaching) are more violent than societies of Christians (many of whom will not be following much of Christian teachings). Robert seems to have been treating the debate as more about Christian and Islamic teachings. Javad seems to have been treating the debate as more about societies of people who call themselves Muslim and societies of people who call themselves Christian.
gravenimage says
Eduardo, it is still the case that Muslim countries are more violent than Christian countries. Even if, as you note, not all members of society are followng the majority faith to the letter. Just look at the cases of “Honor Killings”–90% of them are committed by Muslims worldwide.
End PC says
Caution: This YouTube debate site SHADOW BANS! check you comment on another browser. Here is my banned comment:
Spencer is not really a good debater here. At times he should have been more forceful & aggressive like Hashmi and his voice volume seems muted in comparison (needs to use the mike better like Hashmi). Hashmi is very informative about the evils that Christians have done, but Spence is too confident because he knows Hashmi is not seeing the crucial point, but he need to hammer that point more forcefully. The point is that the awful evils done by Christians were not based on anything Christianity’s main man Jesus said or did, so the evils could end, like the Inquisition ended, no more stupid papal bulls, etc. But the evils done for the cause of Islam were & are based of the teachings of the Qur’an and those of Islam’s main man Muhammad a warlord. The Qur’an & Muhammad still inspire Muslim terrorists, and Islam, unlike Christianity, cannot reform. In fact, there have been 40540 Muslim terrorist attacks just since 9/11. See https://thereligionofpeace.com/ that keeps track. Essentially zero Christian terrorist attacks in comparison. We don’t have to take off our shoes and go through tedious security checks at airports because of fear of Christians. It’s Muslims who are naturally feared.
Luis Dizon says
Reason and Theology doesn’t ban any comments on it videos. There’s a YouTube algorithm that automatically deletes comments that contain key words or phrases deemed politically incorrect. It also deletes comments that contain URLs. The R&T host has no control over it, and there’s no way around it.
Graham Bryant says
The muslim fellow worships allah of the quran who is an idol god non-existent!! And the Lord God shall judge islam in his wrath to come and sooner than you think!!
End PC says
The Reason & Theology YouTube channel cowardly does SHADOW BANNING.
Many of my comments never appear – check your own.