Original Articles

An Unnecessary Debate: Mehdi Hasan Obfuscates the Terrorist Problem both sides Danced Around – by Rusty Walker

mehdi-hasan_5655

These are the sites to observe an Oxford Union debate on: “Is Islam a Peaceful Religion, or a Non-Peaceful Religion?”

Anne-Marie Waters | Islam Is Not A Peaceful Religion | Oxford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQjZHFnmADQ

Mehdi Hasan | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik41uzfc_so

Adam Deen | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0

Daniel Johnson | Islam Is Not A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MDlZk89oaQ

 

This is a debate that should not have been held. I watched all sides of the debate. Due to the wide generalization of the premise, it would be impossible to determine a satisfying outcome. I will explain: A debate designed to appeal to academia, misses the point in the real world.

In a debate conclusions attempt to be reached through logical reasoning based on a “premise.” In this case, both premises are absurd: “Islam is a peaceful religion,” vs. “Islam is not a peaceful religion,” any conclusions drawn are irrelevant in the real world. As mentioned by Mehdi Hasan, the “cherry-picking” of data is not sufficient for a conclusion, but, in fact, both sides used this practice. It made the debate painful to watch. The debate was what Plato called, “eristic;” a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal. Mind you, they fully intended to win their points, but, their eristic argumentation sought conflict as opposed to conflict resolution. Here is my point:  the debate was used to indict or elevate a religion, instead of a more useful illuminating of the factual information available on global terrorists. Terrorism, facts on-the-ground, have nothing to do with the hyped-up notion of a scholarly debate on whether there is a peaceful or non-peaceful Islam.

This debate itself obfuscates the terrorist problem both sides danced around. The problem is not determining whether Islam is violent. Which begs the question, is Christianity violent? Which is an equally useless debate.  The debate should have been based on the real-world issue of Wahhabi/Salafists. So, the“cherry-picking” becomes a fruitless debate on Islam, encouraging Hasan to grasp at such irrelevant occurrances such as individuals accused of U.S. bombing of abortion clinics. Well, there have been merely a handful of those, and Christianity condemns them. There have only been eight murders relating to abortion in the U.S. . The total number of violent acts relating to abortion merely in the hundreds, so low as to be insignificant considering given over 300 million U.S. population.  But, debate topics such as this encourage the focus on a religion, resulting in obfuscation of terrorist anomalies within a religion.

How quickly we could fool ourselves into condemning entire religions of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism- even Buddhism: Ashin Wirathu, a Burmese Buddhist spiritual leader encourages the anti- Muslim movement, and the violence unleashed on Muslims. This, nevertheless, does not represent Buddism, nor define it now as a non-peaceful religion. Muhammad began preaching Islam around 610 AD. Islam is over 1400 years old, a younger religion than Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity, all of which were based on love and respect for one another.  Still, for the sake of argument, let’s consider for a moment that Islam is not a peaceful religion if we trot out and dust off the argument that Islamic warriors captured Medina, Mecca, advancing into Jerusalem, and onward until they reached and conqureed Spain; then, the Caliphate established, the Ottoman Empire and its oppressive history. These historical facts alone constitute “cherry-picked data” to attempt to make a good case for Islam being violent. We can continue this exercise in futility by doing the same to Christendom.

So not only is the premise wrong but Islam is being compared to Christendom and Christianity both simultaneously.

“It is difficult to generalize about Islam. To begin with, the word itself is commonly used with two related but distinct meanings, as the equivalents both of Christianity, and Christendom. In the one sense, it denotes a religion, as system of beliefs and worship; in the other, the civilization that grew up and flourished under the aegis of that religion. The word Islam thus denotes more than fourteen centuries of history, a billion and a third people, and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity. … For more than a
thousand years, Islam provided the only universally acceptable set of rules and principles for the regulation of public and social life. Even during the period of maximum European influence, in the countries ruled or dominated by European imperial powers as well as in those that remained independent, Islamic political notions and attitudes remained a profound and pervasive influence.” — Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror, pgs. 1 and 13

The debater’s failed premise ruins the debate by missing realities in the world. Daniel Johnson mentioned that the previous day a British soldier was beheaded by a Muslim. He fails to mention by whom? A Muslim representing Islam? No. The killer may have thought he was, but, he was a Takfiri Deobandi, and not part of Orthodox Islam. This overlooked detail kept focus on Islam, not the terrorists! The relevent debate could be a two sentence argument : Are the terrorists Takfiri Deobandi Wahhabi’s? Yes. Are they violent? Yes. Is Islam therefore violent? No.

It is easy with this incendiary premise to capture attention. With it, we could also find Judaism and Christendom violent. Having read the Quran, Hadiths, Sunnah, many times, as well as the Bible and the New Testament, it is easy to malign by a quote out of context, and difficult to navigate through ancient teachings and practices and interpretations and reconcile them with modern interpretations. Simply read the Old Testament, and you are left with bloodshed from a “God of Wrath.” If you’ve heard the infamous atheist, Richard Dawkins’ description of the God of the Old Testament you might be shocked, as he states: “The Old Testament God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, insecticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, monomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” However, what is more shocking is that if you read the Old Testament, this wrathful God is worse than this description. This is the Lord of the Jews and Catholics, and he is indeed, vindictive, murderous, jealous and is fine with slaves, stoning and beheading,

The Lord gives his commandments through Moses in Deuteronomy, orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline. When we read of “Mormon” daughters married to favored uncles and brothers-in-law, who sometimes have wives already, then we might be more careful in accusing Mohammad (PBUH) of being a pedophile, for having a nine year old wife, with whom we do not know when the marriage was consummated, if ever; and when we read the Catholic Old Testament and Torah, the Lord speaking through Moses demands  of his generals after battle: “Now, therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But, all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Does this prove that Judaism or Christendom (as opposed to Islam) is violent? No.

 The problem is not Islam as a violent religion. The problem is not the Clash of Civilizations; nor clash of religions, or presumed clash of Shia and Sunni sects. The problem are the violent, small, scattered terrorist organizations that have managed to high-jack Islam for its cause. The Saudi-based Wahhabi/Salafists are the ones with global Caliphate fantasies on the mind.

These debates were held by intelligent academics, none of whom were religous scholars, and are essentially missing the core issue: the Takfiri Deobandi Salafi/Wahabi Jihadis are the terrorists. They declare themselves enemies of both non-Muslims and Muslims who align with the Orthodox moderate view of the Islamic religion. Although Mehdi Hasan’s narrative (himself a Shia), remains broad, intellectual honesty requires mention of the perpetrators in no uncertain terms. Over 95% of terrorists captured in Pakistan and 95% of terrorist organizations are Deobandi or Wahhabi. Please let us not debate Islam, when it is the Wahhabi/Salfists that are the issue- and these are not being publicized by the establishment press, or mainstream television. This leaves the common person on the street, those busy making a living and/or caring for a family, or the young student involved in studies, all with limited time, easily confused, and outraged at the wrong group of people. This misinformation risks whole cultures, nationalities, or religions unfairly condemned.

The opposition brought up Justice as the Quran’s message: Justice? What of the Pakistani courts and authorities turning a blind eye to tribal and Shia murders, beheadings, and Honor Killings; No one dared speak of the tribal Jirgas or “Panchayati Raj,” “pashtunwali,” or, “do Ghairat” concerning justice, which is local law, not Islamic Law, and not Orthodox Islam. Or, what of the real-world of a corrupted Chief Justice in Pakistan who frees Jihadists – all sympathizers to Takfiri Salafists. Justice? Who’s justice? Should we suppose Malala shooting was justified by Islam? No, it was justified by Taliban- Takfiri Salafists. These are the anti-women, anti-education thugs that claim Islam, while killing Muslim brothers and sisters.   I wonder if women murdered because they were raped can be consider Islamic justice? No. Hasan went on: Number 2: “Quranic injunctions pertaining to war,” “are ethically and morally justified,” Deen also, asserted this. Justified by whom? Sipah- e-Sahaba, now renamed as Ahl-e-Sunnat wal Jamaatcan, can justify killing Shia men, women and children in Quetta, and LeT in Mumbai with no problem and assign it to Islamist Jihad. This does not make a case for or against Islam, as it is not a universal Islamic Jihad. Orphans from Madrassas strapped with explosives and blow up a bus where Shias travel home….justified by Islam? Deen’s argument for peaceful Islam through, a. Quranic justice and b. ethical war, makes the case better for Anne-Marie Waters who asserts Islam is violent.

The debate should instead have been a valuable discussion of the roots of true global-terrorism: It goes back to Saudi Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), who collaborated with Mohammad ibn Saud, defining an austere and strict sect of fundamental interpretation of the Quran, that initiated almost immediate violence- 1802 Wahhabi forces sacked Karbala and massacred every identifiable man, woman and child that was Shia. Such violence of this Deobandi Sunni sect (not Orthodox Sunnis, who are peaceful) is reminiscent of the #Shia Genocide we see today in Pakistan. This was absent in the debates. It was sad, that what could have been much needed enlightment, became a meaningless academic debate. This violence is the root evil and continuance today of terrorism we see around the globe- not Islam.

Related : https://lubpak.net/archives/274067

About the author

Rusty Walker

About the author: Rusty Walker is a world-travelled, Independent Political Analyst, educator, author, Vietnam veteran-era U.S. Air Force, from a military family, retired college professor, former Provost (Collins College, U.S.A.), artist, musician and family man. Rusty Walker is an ardent supporter of Pakistan.

16 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • Rusty is in action, bravo. Hands in hands, steps in synch, high in morales, we will never give up.

  • Read your article with great interest and agree with your view point born in a muslim country studied Quran and studied Islamic history in detail.
    As a matter of fact Islam is a reigon of Sword. The concept is.Darul ul Oman ad the non muslim country is Dural Harrab. So they shall always would like to take over the governess of the government.

  • Interesting piece. So how do you define the orthodox Muslims? Who are they? What sect do they follow? Sufism? Shia’s? Ahmediya’s?

  • Excellent and intelligent question, Abu Sufian Miah! I suspect you know the answer. But, I will elucidate on my use of what I even find, perhaps to be a clumbsy term: Orthodox.
    I chose to use “Orthodox Islam” in a similar way we use “Islamic” as a convenient way of including the global consensus of accepted sects and groups of Islam.
    Islamic being the traditional peaceful Muslims vs “non-Orthodox” meaning the “Islamists,” the self-appointed radical Jihadist groups, such as al Qaeda, LeT, SSP/ASWJ, TTP, all affiliated with: Deobandi Wahhabi/Salafists.
    These are the fringes, none of whom could be considered mainstream Islam. Which is why I object to the debate against Islam, when it is the violent fringe groups that are the terrorists. If for no other reason than they are murdering their own.
    The Orthodox, to which I refer is no mystery: the majority Sunni, Shia, Sufism and the Ahmedis; as well as the accepted groups within these sects, for one example: Shia has groups (sects) such as Imami (the largest Shia sect, called “Twelvers”), Zaydi, and Ismaili.

    In separating religious radical groups from Islam, I now can inform the uninformed, that the terrorists are the self-appointed Islamist extremists as Maulana Maudoodi, the Jamaat –i-Islami (JI), Zia’s preference; Sayyid Qutb, of Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda’s Saudi affiliation, Wahhabism, who joined with the Indian Deobandis, all of who claim Islam, but fight against Islam, cosidering the following as apostates: Shias, Sunnis, Ahmedis, sufis, Muslims not of their group, and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, et. al.

    My reference to Orthodox Islam is not unlike using Christiandom – as an overview of accepted Christian denominations: who also do not agree, but are not diposed to war and outright suicide bombers; certainly many had violent conflicts in the Dark Ages, and even less evolved times during the Witch Burnings in young America, but now, different denominations exist in peace, non-violence, under Christiandom, despite the expected self-righteous squabbling.

    • May Allaah guide you! Read more, if you want to know more read more, but be sure to read the authentic sources. Like for example if you want to learn about Islam you have to ask a Muslim Scholar not a Christian Scholar. So if you want to learn about Salafiyah then ask or read the books of authorized and true Muslim Scholar that adheres with the creed of the Righteous Predecessors and don’t ask or read the book of a Shia Scholar regarding the teachings of those who adheres with the creed of As-Salaaf As-Saalih nor Ahmediyyas nor Sufis nor any other group. We are commanded by Allaah to ask those who knows if we do not know something. And truly the one who knows about Salafiyah are the one who adheres to it not the one who adheres to other creed.

  • Well said “eristic” argumentation, purposeless debates. I usually even not give a damn to such discussions, consider them a waste of time. What matters is, as you have explained in your writeup, whose Islam? Whose Christianity? Whose Judaism? Began diving through ‘grand philosophies’ and ‘grand and all encompassing solutions’, compared words with deeds and ultimately found a simple solution — a string, called Hussein (AS). From Hussein (AS) to Ali (AS) to the Lord (SAWAW), Jesus (AS), Moses (AS), Abraham (AS) and then to the Lord of Lords. On the contrary, if I had got a hold on Ibne-Abdul Wahab, I would have ended up in a terrorist camp. The solution is simple; get hold of the right string.

    A note of disagreement regarding Maulana Maudoodi sahib: Though he left a Fascist-type party as his legacy, made a great contribution in the form of his book “Khilafat-o-Malookiat” and his work “Tafheem-ul-Quran”, albeit with some reservations at few places. He exposed ‘political Islam’ of Ummayads and Abbasides.

    And finally (with apologies) an observation: A little long article. Please keep in view modestly educated people like me (slow readers), who have to rush to a manual work to earn a pay checque.

  • Well said, my erdite friend, Abdullah AlFaisal!
    I thank you for the additonal positive information on Maulana Maudoodi, too; it was an important addition.
    So sorry I am too wordy! My editor and I are working that. I tend to write a book! In my latest post, the editor solved it by splitting it into three articles! A good solution if I cannot be more disciplined.

  • antidote- yes, very true, and hopefully more and more will understand the evil of Takfiri Wahabi-Salafi-Deobandi, Inshallah!

  • Interesting piece… quite a few basic errors – the violence is not determined by Wahabism as perpetrators come from various juristic backgrounds. It’s caused by Western foreign policy.
    A good thoughtful piece on this site is worth reading:
    https://highlyskeptical.wordpress.com

  • Vices are acts that are often undertaken for pure pleasure and leisure. Furthermore they often contradict and offend norms, values and social standards. In most cases they are the source of both significant revenues and communal controversy. They often are used as both manifestation and degradation of society. The fundamental challenge lies in having to grasp such and renounce the same. This is predicated on having experience and exposure to it in the many forms it has. This is most conveniently undertaken through activities that are done for the purpose of enjoyment and relaxation. Meaning vacations are a good way to be exposed to certain vices.A Las Vegas Vacation can be one such outing. Aside from exploring and seeing Las Vegas non-gambling attractions it is equally if not more important than seeing firsthand the many vices which many firms in the said city profit from. This place being known as the city of vices is a good place to gain an in – depth understanding and realistic experience of such things as gambling. A tour of the city’s well known vice establishments is a good way to learn in real life what are vices and their implications. There is no better way to be educated about them than this scenario. This is a value aside from the Family friendly Las Vegas holiday that some might opt to have.A Las Vegas Vacation can be very informative if one seeks to have a better understanding of vices like gambling. Many may contend that this is not a sound and wholesome way of experiencing the same. Some may even say it is improper to delve into this form of social corruption. However there is something good in this in comparison to Las Vegas non-gambling attractions and the idea of a Family friendly Las Vegas. To combat vice people must have a good grasp and knowledge about the same. A society can purge itself of corruption if it does not clear perspective of the said taint. To build a more Family friendly Las Vegas it is necessary to render vice as unpopular and unwanted. The notion that such are good and monetarily beneficial persists since people do not know much about them. Besides that the said locality can still draw tourists via Las Vegas non-gambling attractions. The campaign to limit gambling as the main commercial vice that this city earns from can be improved. If the proponents of the same have first hand knowledge of such like through a Las Vegas Vacation they can better promote their advocacy. A more persuasive promoter is one which has first hand experience to refer to and talk about.Social change is best forwarded with experience and personal knowledge. The kind of transformative immersion into social realities is through direct contact with the social phenomenon in question. To better grasp gambling a good way to do so is seeing such in the center of the same, Las Vegas. In this place one can partake of the famous vice of gambling.

  • Sie könnten in die Falle der unerwarteten finanziellen Hürden fallen manchmal ohne Vorwarnung. Solche Cash-Hürden auftauchen können, an jedem Punkt der Zeit in Ihrem Leben. Wenn Sie tatsächlich benötigen, um Instant Kreditzusage sind dann sollten Sie Optionen von 6-Monats-Zahltag Darlehen, die an unserem finanziellen Kredit-Service. Es ist zuverlässig für Sie solche kleinen Zahltag Darlehen im Falle der mit Kredit-Probleme zu wählen. Sie können nun auf unserer Website Darlehen jederzeit und erhalten sofort Geld mit wenigen Klicks der Maus. Requirements-1. Sie müssen eine echte Bürger der USA zu sein. 2. Sie müssen über 18 Jahre alt zu erreichen. 3. Sie ist eine ständige Aufgabe. 4. Und sollten Sie eine gültige Girokonto in den USA haben. Wenn Sie diese Kriterien haben, können Sie jetzt online gehen und nützen Darlehen ohne jede Hektik. Procedure-Im Gegensatz zu der alten Methode der Gebrauch Darlehen, können Sie Möglichkeit der Online-Kreditantrag Verfahren zu ergreifen, um einen Kredit zu beantragen. Es dauert nur wenige Minuten zu füllen Darlehen Antragsformular mit Ihrer vollständigen Angaben wie Name, Geschlecht, Alter und Bankkonto. Darüber hinaus werden die Kreditgeber bieten Ihnen sofortige Kreditzusage am selben Tag. Nachdem Sie die sofortige Kreditzusage zu erhalten, wird das sanktioniert Darlehensbetrag automatisch auf Ihr Bankkonto am selben Tag gutgeschrieben. Darlehen in Höhe von bis 6 Monate Zahltag Darlehen, werden Sie dringend Bargeld im Bereich von $ 100 bis $ 1500 Dollar zusammen mit kurzfristigen Darlehen Rückzahlung Amtszeit werden erwerben. Wie der Name schon sagt, kommt dieses Darlehen mit 6 Monaten Dauer der Rückzahlung der Darlehen. Wie pro Ihre finanziellen Bedürfnisse, können Sie leihen, wie Darlehen und Ihre finanziellen Aufwendungen. Der Kreditbetrag kann verwendet werden, um verschiedene unerwartete Kredit-Probleme wie-auszahlt Arztrechnungen, Telefonrechnungen, Hochzeit Aufwendungen und pädagogische Zwecke für Kinder gerecht werden. Es ist so viel Bargeld hilfreich Lösung entwickelt, um viele Kreditnehmer in USA zu helfen. Wollen Sie bis 6 Monate Zahltag Darlehen nun nützen? Wenn ja, ist dies die richtige Online-Destination für einen Kredit zu holen. Vorteile– Keine Bonitätsprüfung, – keine Sicherheiten, – Keine Dokumentation und papierlos – Sofortige Kreditzusage, kann daher keine schlechte Kredit-Menschen online gehen und holen für 6 Monate Zahltag Darlehen, da es keine Beteiligung der Bonitätsprüfung. Dies ist die beste Option für alle, die dringend Bargeld leihen will.? Zusammenfassung: Sie können Option Gebrauch 6 Monate Zahltag Darlehen zu nehmen, und treffen Sie Bargeld Notfälle in einfacheren Weg.? Aldis Roy zählt auf seine Erfahrung für die Unterstützung der Darlehen Suchende. Er liefert nützliche Tipps für die richtigen Kredite. .

  • Wenn Ihre monatlichen Ausgaben und Wünsche werden über Ihr Einkommen bekommen und Sie können nicht für Freunde und Familie um Hilfe bitten, die sich auf dieses Darlehen Option kann sich lohnen. Um die einfach und stressfrei Genehmigung der entsprechenden Kredite zu bekommen, müssen Sie nicht zu folgen, oder gehen Sie mit langen und langwierigen procedure.You können für diese Darlehen mit voller Leichtigkeit und Komfort gelten. Was Sie tun müssen, ist, dass gerade vor dem Computer sitzen, im Internet surfen und suchen für verschiedene Agenturen und Darlehen Darlehen Regelung Angebot von ihnen. Nach der Auswahl der besten Kredit-Agentur mit dem besten Darlehen Regelung, für ein Online-Antragsformular, das an relativ Website der Kreditgeber ist anzuwenden und füllen Sie ihn mit allen erforderlichen Details und abschicken. Lender überprüft Ihre Form und dauert nur wenige Stunden, um Ihren Kredit zu genehmigen. Sobald Ihr Kredit genehmigt wird der gesamte Betrag sanktioniert werden automatisch auf Ihr Bankkonto überweisen. Nach der Regelung von 12 Monaten Zahltag Darlehen Sie für Darlehen von unterschiedlichen Mengen gelten, aber Sie sollten das Richtige für sich selbst entscheiden und auch eine weitere Sache, die Sie auch in der Lage zurück zu zahlen Darlehensbetrag leicht zu können. Die Erstattung Zeitspanne von 1 bis 30 Tage. Sie und die Rückzahlung der Kreditsumme in leicht EMI? S auch. Wenn Sie zu spät oder zu verzögern, um den Darlehensbetrag zurückzuzahlen dann extra fein wird auch auf diese Gebühr. .