By Rachel Goddard-Bernstein
Ayes: 286
Noes: 168
In a timely debate, held just 24 hours after the religiously motivated incident in Woolwich, the Union considered the question of the nature of Islam.
Proposition speaker Matthew Handley started the debate by grounding it in recent events, deploring the previous day’s “reprehensible act in Woolwich”, a sentiment that he was sure would be shared by Muslims around the world.
Handley continued by separating the religion of Islam from the individuals who “violently hijack faith for violent and maniacal ends” and maintained that the Qur’an has an “overwhelmingly peaceful character.”
In the light of the “decade long surge of violence and aggression” against Islam since 9/11, he summarised the debate as a choice between “love and hate and rejection, peace and conflict” and concluded: “I hope you make the right choice.”
Speaker Anne-Marie Waters, council member of the National Secular Society, began the case for the opposition by denying that she and her fellow opposition speakers cause fear of Islam and blamed instead “the actions of Islam itself”.
She listed “9/11, 7/7, Mali, Somalia, gender discrimination, forced marriages, polygamy, amputation”, and many more. To the opposition’s claim that these acts belong to an “extreme fringe” which has misunderstood the words of the Qur’an, she described the executions for blasphemy and apostasy in Saudi Arabia, and asked “has there ever been a more spectacular misunderstanding?”
Waters concluded by arguing that it is the moderate Muslims who must “dance around meanings” and “stretch interpretations” when confronted with the fundamentally violent ideology of the Qur’an.
Adam Deen, a prominent Muslim intellectual and founder and director of the Deen Institute, countered this by arguing that “if we approach Islamic teaching fairly and objectively, there is a golden thread that runs through whole Qur’an,” an ideal of “justice” and “positive peace”.
He argued that in fact the whole of Islam is compatible with “just war theory”, in which “the virtue of avoiding violence is superseded by the virtue of justice.” He then quoted from the Qur’an which states: “Fight in God’s cause but do not overstep the limits. God does not love those who overstep the limits.”
Daniel Johnston, journalist and editor of what he called the “not very right-wing” magazine Standpoint, called Islam “the most direct threat to Western civilization in the world today”.
Johnston deplored the lack of “freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, equal rights, and separation between church and state” in Islamic countries, emphasizing that “all these ideals emerged in the West.”
Johnston claimed that a university like Oxford, with its tradition of free academic inquiry, could not exist under the conditions of an Islamic state and that “there is no university in this sense in the Islamic world”.
Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, political editor of the Huffington Post, warned Anne-Marie Waters that her “astonishing claims” might endanger her future as a Labour Party candidate, but assured her “don’t worry, the BNP will take you”.
Hasan asked why, if Islam is “responsible for killing,” such a tiny percentage of believers actually participate in violence. He asked the audience if they really believe that 1.6 billion people are all “followers, promoters and believers in a religion of violence”.
Hasan urged them not to “fuel the arguments of the phobes and bigots and legitimise hate”, but to “trust the Muslims that you know and that you hear.”
Opposition speaker Peter Atkins, former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford, concluded the debate by describing Islam along with all other religions as a “supermarket of ideas and instructions” from which good and bad men can select what they want “according to their taste.”
However, he claimed that Islam “does in practice inspire more violence than the other Abrahamic religions”.
Taking on Adam Deen’s metaphor of a ‘golden thread’, he argued that “the opposite of peace is woven into the fabric of the Qur’an.”
Atkins declared that “all the seas incarnadine cannot wash the blood from a religion’s hands”, because “when evils destroy a human life, as they did yesterday, that life cannot be restored”. He called on the audience to oppose the motion “for the sake of humanity.”
By Bill Warner
Some people don’t want to learn about Islam from someone who was not a Muslim, a professor or some other “approved” source of information. How can someone without a degree in Islam be an expert on it?
The question is who can we trust to tell the truth about Islam? The answer you will get by going by talking to Muslims has the advantage that if you choose the right country and the right Muslim, you will get the “right” answer. But if you ask the “wrong” Muslim (usually called an extremist or radical Muslim) you will get the answer you won’t like. Is Saudi Arabia or Turkey the right country to go to? Is a Wahabbi imam or a Islamist scholar of Islam the right person to ask? Subjective Islam is a polling problem. Who you ask determines the answer you get. Apologists for Islam ask the “expert” who gives them the answer they want—Islam is wonderful.
But there is one source of knowledge about Islam that is not subjective. If you talk to Muslims, you will find that there is one thing that they all agree on: There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger. This statement is the beginning of Islamic objective knowledge, since 100% of all Muslims believe it.
Allah is found in the Koran. When you read and understand the Koran, you find that there are 91 verses that command all Muslims to imitate Mohammed, the divine human prototype. We find out what Mohammed did and said in order to imitate him in two places – Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, and his Traditions, the Hadith. And that is all there is to know about Islamic doctrine:
• Koran
• Sira
• Hadith
Objective truth: if it is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, it is Islam. Islam is Allah and Mohammed, no exceptions. So skip asking a Muslim, going to a Muslim country or asking a professor. For objective answers, ask Mohammed and Allah. In other words, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The problem is that no one reads them is because they used to be difficult. Today are available because simple scientific methods have produced versions that anybody can read. For one example, see the Trilogy Project.
Statistical methods reveal that there are two Korans, Mecca and Medina, and that there are two Mohammeds. In Mecca the Koran is religious, but only a 150 people became Muslims in 13 years time. Later in Medina, Mohammed became a politician and a jihadist, and the Koran becomes jihadic and political.
There are two Islams, two sets of facts – Mecca and Medina. Preaching the religion in Mecca was a failure. But, Mohammed averaged an event of jihad every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life, and by the time he died, every Arab was a Muslim. So if you want peaceful Islam go to Mecca. If you want politics and violence, go to Medina. Islam is a dualistic system where peace and jihad exist side by side. Dualism allows “experts” to get what they want, a peaceful Islam in Mecca. See, there it is in the Meccan Koran—peace. Just don’t ever mention Medina and the news is good.
However, the only trustworthy experts are Mohammed and Allah, found in Islam’s texts. They will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, here is the rule to grade your experts: listen to those who quote Mohammed and Allah. And ask the expert: What else does Islam teach about this? Get the whole truth, the whole story.
Better yet, since the Koran, Sira and Hadith have been made readable by the average person, read the texts and become an expert yourself by quoting Allah and Mohammed. You will bring objective Islam to your world.
By AnonymousUK
Greetings citizens of the United Kingdom. It has come to our attention that we are being overrun by Islamists. We will not stand for this and action must be taken immediately.
It is time to kick Islam and all of its followers out of Britain. They serve no purpose other than to push Islam. They have no allegiance to Britain or its Code of Laws.
I am sick and tired of dhimmi liberal traitors lying to the media and the public about the true nature of Islam. It is not a religion of peace, it is an ideology of death and enslavement. Its followers view all non-Muslims as inferior, their cultures disgusting and their non-Islamic nations as cancers where Sharia Law is the only cure.
I despise Islam. It is a disgusting, vile, primitive, fascist totalitarian ideology. I hate proponents of this cult of death, as they walk through these free lands I was born into, preaching their hate and contempt for all others while claiming their ignorant religion means peace. Britain needs it like a hole in the head.
What does Islam actually bring to Britain, apart from division, ghettos, drains on taxes and resources? Why would Britain need Islam? What positive things does it bring that British people do not already have?
What is happening in Britain now is similar to what their raping, murdering, child molesting, lying, selfish, fascist 'prophet' did at the beginning of this disgusting religion of hate. To gain followers, Muhammad wrote Surahs preaching the tolerance and acceptance of other people and religions.
When he acquired riches and power (through violence and lies) he then changed his tune. No longer was it the case of infidels or kafirs being tolerated, it was now an ultimatum of three options. (These are the three options Islam gives you).
1. Convert to Islam.
2. Submit as an inferior citizen (dhimmi) and pay the non-Muslim tax, the Jizya.
3. Be killed.
As The Opinionator points out in THE EU ABETTED ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE ACCELERATES, the EU is forcing everyone within its dictatorship to accept Islam. This is also an extension of the Barcelona Declaration.
Anyone who has actually researched Islam and the Quran will know that the goal of Islam is to bring the world into the house of Allah. That includes Britain, and, while living in taxpayer fundedaccomodation and spending your taxes on themselves, they scheme and plot against this nation.
Today, while walking through a street in London, I came across a poster on a bus stop, calling for the conversion of Britain to an Islamic state. I was going to tear them off, but I thought it would be a more effective message if I defaced them. One already had the word 'bollocks' written over it which brought a smile to my face.
As far as the 'Islam condemns violence' line is concerned, that regards violence against innocent people. But Islam views all non-Muslims as guilty of not being Islamic, as this BBC interview will highlight;
'Only Muslims are Innocent' says Muslim on BBC
Regarding the religion of peace lie, that is only applicable to Muslims. It is peaceful if you are an Islamic state. All non-Islamic states must be conquered. Regarding acts of violence in the name of their religion, read this;
One third of British Muslim students think it is acceptable to kill in name of Islam
Still, our unelected rulers will believe Islam should be forced upon democratic nations, whether their people like it or not. Britain must be nicer to Muslims, says UN 'human rights' chiefs. Maybe they should read the Quran. As far as I'm concerned, Islam should be legally positioned as a subversive ideology, easily proven to be in violation of British law and the very essence of individual freedom.
Britain will never become an Islamic dictatorship. The treasonous government, being completely controlled by the Communist EU is actively pushing for the suppression of all dissent and questioning of Islam under the guise of 'Islamophobia'. It is time the British stopped being afraid of speaking the truth. If you continue to blindly comply with the state it will definitely result in the downfall of Britain.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
.jpg)