RadaMillz
Superstar
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9tNyp03M0[/ame]
i think the premise of the debate is ridiculous. there really is no way to define any religion as being "of peace" unless it is so explicitly peaceful that anybody who claims it and then commits any act of aggression will be seen as completely out of step. all 3 of the abrahamic religions sanction violence.
he did a pretty good job. i think his mentioning of the holocaust should humble any european who gets on a high horse when speaking about muslims.
that being said...
i think the premise of the debate is ridiculous. there really is no way to define any religion as being "of peace" unless it is so explicitly peaceful that anybody who claims it and then commits any act of aggression will be seen as completely out of step. all 3 of the abrahamic religions sanction violence.
im not critiquing islam, i am critiquing the point of this debate. my point is that "religion of peace" is a nonsense statement, making the whole debate nonsense.He specifically said Islam isn't a pacifist religion though, what he was saying is that most Muslims are peaceful, and if Islam truly were a religion of "hate" or "war" then that simply wouldn't be the case.
So what if Islam sanctions violence in some cases? So does every government on the planet.
im not critiquing islam, i am critiquing the point of this debate. my point is that "religion of peace" is a nonsense statement, making the whole debate nonsense.
The premise of the debate may be nonsense, but the points he made are things that need to be heard...especially when there are so-called academics out there with the concerted goal of portraying all Muslims as savage and prone to violence.
The premise of the debate may be nonsense, but the points he made are things that need to be heard...especially when there are so-called academics out there with the concerted goal of portraying all Muslims as savage and prone to violence.