Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Welcome and thank you all for coming. Uh my task in these evenings is to frame the debate and u in this particular case I want to start by quoting George W. Bush who often proclaimed that Islam is a religion of peace. It's one of the few things he said with which President Obama is in full agreement. And it is doubtless true that the vast majority of Muslims around the world live peacefully and do not condone violent acts. Their Secular concerns are dominant, making a living, raising families, educating their children. Their religion provides spiritual comfort, a

source of meaning, even transcendence to their lives. On the other hand, just today the New York Times reported that uh Fisizel Shazad, the new the Times Square bomber said in court prior to sentencing, quote, "Brace yourselves because the war with Muslims has just begun." And certainly in the past Decades, the vast majority of terrorist activity has been undertaken in the name of Islam. In some respects, Islamism repres resembles the totalitarian movements of the first half of the 20th century. The ruthless use of violence in pursuit of ideology and power by Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Just as

most of their victims were their own people, most victims of Islamist terror have indeed been Muslims. But history is replete with examples of Violent minorities who have held sway over peaceloving majorities. Perhaps the relevant question for this evening is what the majority of Muslims believe. But perhaps it is whether Islam viewed as an ideological force is in direct opposition to western interests and western values. Should we respect Islam as a religion of peace? Or should we accept Samuel Huntington's view that we are engaged in a clash of Civilizations? Or might this be a false dichotomy?

Can we honor our own traditions of pluralism and free exercise of religion and tolerance and accept that for the vast majority of Muslims, it is indeed a religion of peace without compromising our ability to defend ourselves and our values against the ruthless few that wish us harm? Well, these are subtle and complex questions, and we've assembled an extraordinary panel of experts this Evening to uh explore them. It's now my privilege to turn the evening over to our moderator, John Donvan. But before I do so, I'd like to invite a round of applause to congratulate him

on his third Emmy [Applause] [Music] award. Thank you. And I I was going to ask for another round of applause for Robert Rosenritz. And there it is. Welcome everyone to another debate From Intelligence Squared US. I'm John Don Van of ABC News and once again it is my honor to act as moderator as the four debaters you see sharing this stage with me here at the Scurball Center for the Performing Arts at New York University. Four debaters, two against two will be debating this motion. Islam is a religion of peace. Now this is a debate.

There will be winners and losers. And you, our audience, will be acting as the judges. By the time this debate has Ended, you will have been asked to vote twice. once before and once again after the debate on where you stand on this motion and the team that has changed the most minds will be declared our winner. So let's go to the preliminary vote. If you go to the keypads on your seat, our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. If you are for the motion, press number one. If you are against the motion,

press number two. If you are undecided, press number three. You can correct any mistake just by repressing and ignore the other numbers and we will present the results of both votes for you at the end of the evening and that's how we will know who our winner is. So opening round, sorry, I'm going to put it this way. Round one is opening statements by each side. Seven minutes in turn. And I would like to begin by introducing our first speaker for the motion. Islam is a religion of peace. I'd like to introduce Zeba Khan, the

only American on our panel and quite possibly the youngest debater ever to take part in an Intelligence Squared US debate. Welcome, ZBA. I I I know that I first became aware of you when the Washington Post was running a reality game show to name America's next pundit. They had 1400 entrance. And what p place did you come in? They had 4,800 uh entrance actually. 4,800. And you came in I came in second. Second. Well, look where you are now. Ladies and gentlemen, Zakan. Thank you. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the Ros Mr.

Rosen CR and the Intelligence Squared Forum for allowing me to speak tonight alongside such well known and far more distinguished co-panelists. This is particularly an honor for me because let's be honest, I haven't written a book. I'm not a regular on national TV or radio. What I have is my story. I am a Muslim American woman born And raised in Toledo, Ohio by two very loving Indian Muslim parents. My sister, brother, and I were raised in a middle-class American home. We went to mosque on Sundays, attended Sunday school classes, and prayed the community prayer with

our community of Pakistanis, Lebanese, and Syrian Muslims. When I was in high school, our mosque president was a woman who did not wear a headscarf. And it may come as a surprise to some of you, but for the entirety of my life, Men and women have prayed side by side at our mosque, and both can enter the prayer hall in the using the same door. My parents are both very religious people, but they express their faith in different ways. My father emphasizes the devotional and he tends to spend his time praying and reciting the Quran.

Whereas my mother emphasizes a more constructive approach. She uses community service and volunteering to express Hers. But what they both share is fundamental Islamic principles. First and foremost, seek knowledge. They sent they urged their children all three of us to question to have critical minds and to doubt. They wanted us to engage fully with our faith and to question everything. They lived out the Quranic commandment that there is no compulsion in religion and also that God said in the Quran, I made you into many tribes so that you might know one another. And As such,

they enrolled me and my siblings in a Hebrew day school for nine years where we learned Hebrew, read the Torah, and prayed in a synagogue almost every morning. They always wanted us to learn about other faiths. And they always made an an uh they always made sure that we knew the difference though between Islam and Judaism. But they always made sure we also respected our Jewish sisters and brothers in Faith. My story is just one of 1.5 billion stories in some 57 countries. M the Muslim population is one of the most diverse and eclectic in

the world. We are Sunnis. were Shia and even in the Shia tradition there are zadis is aasheris there are numerous mudhabs or schools of thought and sufi mystic orders like Christians and Jews Muslims can be observant non-observant reformist humanist secularist extremist mainstream and There are even some Muslims who consider themselves culturally Muslim but are actually atheist now the motion question for you tonight is asking you to determine whether Islam is a religion of peace. And at first blush, that might seem a bit tricky to decide. After all, the Quran and the Hadith have verses in

them that point to peace and and justice and love. But there are other verses that are violence are about violence and About violence against specific people. So how then do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory verses? How then do we decide whether Islam is a religion of peace? The only way to answer that question is to take an honest look at the people who practice the faith and how they interpret it. According to Gallup's groundbreaking study on what a billion Muslims think, 93% of Muslims around the world are peaceful mainstream Muslims. 7% are what Gallup terms

as politically radicalized. And within that 7% there's a smaller percent that has succumbed to the use of violence. Any percent is too much. But we must remember that the violent minority of a minority are motivated by politics, not religion. As Gallup concluded, what distinguishes the politically radicalized Muslims from the mainstream Muslims is their politics, not their piety. Robert Pap a University Of Chicago political scientist further confirmed this in his book dying to win in which he he came to the same conclusion that the actions of terrorists are politically motivated not through religion. The Tumbl Tigers

for example which are predominantly a Hindu group used and pioneered the use of suicide bombing did so for secessionist reasons not for religious goals. Our opponents would have you believe that there's a take there's a take all no Winners clash between Islam and the West and that Muslims who try to balance their western values and Islam are arrive at a state of cognitive dissonance and are left either mute or crazy by this internal struggle. That description doesn't resonate for me or for my family or for my friends or for my community because those two aspects

of our identity were never in conflict with each other and were never introduced to us as in conflict with Each other. I didn't realize that there were people out there who wondered whether people Muslims like me existed or could exist until after 9/11. Let me be clear. There are some horrifically violent criminals out there who twist our faith to justify their hate and their violence, but I'm here to tell you they don't speak for Islam. Muhammad Hamdani, a first responder who died on 911, speaks for Islam. Hassan Ascari, a Brooklyn Muslim who stepped in on

the subway and saved a complete stranger who was being physically attacked because he was Jewish. He speaks for Islam. Zayab Selby through her organization Women for Women International has assisted over a quarter of a million women across the world. She speaks for Islam and the entire Muslim community of India who when the authorities asked them to take the militants who attacked Mumbai in 2008 said resoundingly and collectively, "No, we will not let the terrorists be buried with us." The media and those who profit from the narrative of Islam versus the West are never going to

tell you my story or the stories of these Muslims who constitute the vast majority of Muslims around the world. But just because you may not hear us, it doesn't mean we're not speaking out. And just because you may not see us on TV, it doesn't mean we don't exist. If you vote against the motion, I would Argue you're voting against the moderate voices of mainstream Islam and telling the terrorists that you agree with their version. I urge you to vote for the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace.

You have heard the opening statement in support of this motion. Now to speak first against the motion that Islam is a religion of peace. I'd like to introduce Ayan Hersy Ali uh a very very well-known uh dissident born in Somalia fled to the Netherlands where she was a member of the parliament the Dutch parliament now she's in the United States once again on in case of asylum because ion um well because I had to live with basically I was afraid for my life ladies and gentlemen in the 21st century in a free country ladies and

gentlemen Herselli [Applause] Ladies and gentlemen, I'm surprised by The motion itself. When I first had it, it reminded me of the academic question, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And I'd think, well, if you do the salsa or the chaa, not many. Why are we not having a motion on is Christianity a religion of peace, is Judaism a religion of peace, etc. Because those would be academic motions. Unfortunately, the Motion Islam is a religion of peace is not academic. I respect and admire Zeba Khan and I want to acknowledge the

fact that you indeed are a demonstration of the assimilation of a Muslim individual, a Muslim woman into Western society, into an American society, that you come from a middle-class family that was very eclectic and respected pluralism. I respect that very much and I admire you for it and I think you are an example to Others. However, I disagree with you that you represent Islam or that you speak for Islam. The problem that is inherent in Islam from the time of its foundation up to this moment is who speaks for Islam and I'll get that later

on. Is it Zeba Khan or is it Faal Jazad who was also a middle-class man went to business school married an American woman had two children lived just like you like many of you and yet he made a different choice Based on a combination of piety and politics and that's what Islam is and before I go on let me define the Key terms of the motion fast religion. The most common definition of religion you will find is the universal quest of humans in search in search of the sacred or the holy. That such is expressed

intellectually. It's expressed in practice. It is Expressed in fellowship. And you look at a religion like Islam on an intellectual level, it was expressed by the founder of Islam as a demolition of all other gods. Polytheism had to end and all humanity had to be united under one god. From those of you who are familiar with history, and I think a crowd like this is, you know that no monotheistic religion can be a religion of peace. No Monotheistic religion is a religion of peace and definitely not Islam. Monotheistic religions know periods, lengthy periods of peace,

but they also know lengthy periods of war. In terms of practice, yes, in Islam, you practice charity, you go to Hajj, you pray, all of that. But in terms of practice, there's also the expression, there's the concept of jihad. And I find it a pity that Zeba Khan did not mention that concept, which is central to Islam's conquest and Islam's success. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, in his lifetime conducted 65 campaigns of war that were all successful. And that militaristic history of Islam is well documented. Just go Google it. And if you don't find it

on Google, go to all those former empires that were conquered. The combination of a history of empire of conquest also leaves a legacy behind and That legacy is the thrusting together of people of different ethnicities, languages etc. So even if that empire declines the likelihood, the likelihood of conflict of war is probable. It's high especially where there is a fourth line. That's where Samuel Huntington had a point. That history of militarism combined with the legacy of empire. Those two points alone bely the notion tonight that Islam is a religion Of peace. But that's not all.

When empires decline, those who are defeated and the Muslim empire declined, those who are defeated sometimes find themselves in a state of victimhood. That state of victimhood is exploited by the leadership or those self-appointed leaders of Islam. And what do you see? You see a number of people and I concede it's a minority who believe that Islam is under Siege. A mentality of victimhood tells those who are conquered, who are vanquished that the problem was caused by external powers, not by us. And that systematic denial within Islam after the 19th century to blame only outsiders

exempt Islam from blame from the explanation what went wrong. Yes, it was external. Yes, Muslims were humiliated. Yes, they were conquered. Yes, they were colonized. But how much was also because of the flaws of Islam? And that takes me To the point of absolutism. When the west went into its Islam into its scientific revolution, why wasn't it Muslims? Muslims were the first scientists, arithmetic, logic, etc. They were great. Why didn't they get into that scientific revolution? Why were they left behind? Was it only because of external factors or were there internal flows? That combination of

a status of victimhood and the absolutism, the demand that you can Never revise or reflect on the Quran that you can never never ever refute what Muhammad said. You can only follow his example. That absolutism combined with that status of victimhood is also enlarges the likelihood of um of conflict. And those two combined like the other two factors, your time is up. Thank you. That belies the motion. I'll keep my last two factors for the time I have remaining. Thank you. Thank you. We are halfway through the opening round of this Intelligence Square US debate.

I'm John Donvan. We have four debaters, two teams of two fighting it out over this motion. Islam is a religion of peace. You have heard from the first two debaters in their opening statements and now on to the third. I'd like to introduce Majin Nawas who is director of the Quilliam Foundation and he is in a way has an amazing biography. U several years back would have been America's Nightmare. He was a radical. He was imprisoned in Egypt while on a trip there though he's born in the UK was in Egypt and tortured for being

a radical and something happened to you in prison. 180° turn in one sentence. What was it in one sentence? You talking about four years there. Yeah. Amnesty International, but I'll explain that in my hopefully. Fair enough. Ladies and gentlemen, Majin Nawas. Thank you. Could I indulge the audience and just ask for a round of applause for Zaba's mom? She's just over there. I think she did a wonderful job. Yeah. to raise your daughter to speak Hebrew in the current climate is amazing and I applaud you. Um so uh ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving

me this opportunity. I want to uh begin by just stating what this debate is not about. This debate is not about making excuses For terrorism. I uh basically my career is to challenge extremism and terrorism uh in the west and also in Muslim majority countries. I've just flown uh right in from Pakistan where I've been uh building the foundations for the first nationwide social movement to challenge extremism and promote democratic values in Pakistan. And I'm proud to announce that just today uh we gained our 10,000th member on Facebook. So this Debate this debate is not

about making excuses for suicide bombers even inside Israel. Uh we make no apologies and no excuses on this panel for terrorism, for extremism uh and for people who kill innocent civilians including inside Israel. This debate uh acknowledges we on our panel, Zabre and myself, acknowledge that Muslims do need to speak out against extremism and to challenge it and more Muslims need to do that more actively. We acknowledge that Muslims bear a responsibility in reclaiming their faith from those the minority who have hijacked Islam and who have captured the public imagination in their definition of Islam.

We acknowledge that and I am in my in my own person a manifestation of that effort. um as is Zabre in in the way she was raised. So we acknowledge that as well. This debate in fact is an appeal. It's it's not uh also before I move to the fact that it's an appeal, it's also Not a threat. So we're not going to argue here tonight that if you don't vote for the motion that somehow Muslims are going to rise up and attack you for insulting Islam. That's not the case. This is an appeal. And

it's an appeal to your good sense and your good character and to what you know inside you. This is actually not a debate for Islam at all. This is a debate for peace. And we are not arguing for Islamic peace. We're arguing for Islam to be with all other religions and all other beliefs and those who have no faith to be part of the effort to create peace in the world. So this is a debate for peace. It's a debate and I'm asking you all to vote tonight not for Islam but to vote for peace

and to help contribute the efforts of all of us around the world who are working for peace because there were people like me who spent 13 years of our life working To create hatred. I used to believe that Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact, I used to believe that Islam mandates war. I used to believe and propagate across the world in more than three countries that Islam mandates war and mandates the creation of a state that will have at its heart of its foreign policy a policy to create conquest. I called it

jihad. I believed Islam was not a religion of peace because I adopted an Ideology at 16 years old and stuck with that until my imprisonment and then after I was released from prison when I was 28 years old. By that time I had established this ideology in Pakistan and in Denmark and contributed to its growth in Egypt. But I learned in prison two things. One was what I'm appealing to you here today. And that was when people hand out an olive branch, it does work. People I Had considered my enemy. People I had considered the

enemy of my people. Amnesty International with their advocation of human rights that I believed was a tool to colonize the minds of Muslims adopted me as a prisoner of conscience. And by handing me that olive branch, I recognized that there was goodness in the world. And there were people who, regardless of the provocation they find in the world today, are still willing to fight for Peace and are still willing to redefine the debate. And that's what I'm asking you to do here tonight. Because by redefining the debate and by insisting that they would not allow

my hatred to define for them the way in which they viewed me, they changed my heart. I went on and to and took that message forward and helped establish the world's first counter extremism think tank in the west. Then went into Pakistan to Help establish the first nationwide counter extremism movement in Pakistan. And as I said, we have 10,000 supporters before we've even launched of Muslims from Pakistan who are helping us to redefine the debate, who are not allowing the minority of extremists to hijack Islam, to monopolize its definition and then define for us all

that this should be a world of war. Not just Islam as a religion of war, but as you heard from our co-panelist here on The other side, all religions should be religions of war in their minds. whether that's because they want to fight or because they're not believers in religions and they wish to challenge religion from that basis. And so I make an appeal to all of you tonight to help us redefine this debate. And the second thing that happened to me in prison that helped me change my mind was that I had the opportunity,

I won't say good fortune Because it wasn't really that, but the opportunity to mix with some of the leading founding jihadists of the world inside an Egyptian prison. ironically built by the British. And what I learned was that I had been extremely arrogant. I had suffered from the failure that I saw here tonight in my respected colleagues presentation. I had failed to contextualize history. And when I was this young and angry 24 Year old who yes had grievances, who'd been stabbed at multiple times growing up on the streets of Essex who had been falsely arrested

on a number of occasions because of racial profiling. I was a very angry young man. But I went to men in prison who had been in prison since I was 3 years old. And then I met them at 24 and they had abandoned their previous terrorist ideology and I had the arrogance to try and convince them that they had sold out That they didn't understand that true Islam was a religion of war. And they said to me, "Young lad, come and sit down. We'll tell you a story or two." And over the course of the

four years, after having learned Arabic, after having memorized half of the Quran, after having studied the theology, though myself not being too much of a religious man, I came to the Conclusion that Islam had been hijacked and abused and politicized by something that I now refer to as Islamism, the modern ideology that owes more to postWorld War I European fascism than it does to the tradition itions of Islam and these former jihadists among them the assassins of Egypt's former president Anar Sarat who was killed in 1981 they had come to the same conclusions and so

I appeal to all of You as my time runs out there's much more to say to vote to help us all to redefine this motion to redefine this world because only by by refusing to accept the paradigms that we find imposed upon us can we refute change and that's exactly how the civil rights movement in America uh tackled this issue when they were faced with such situations ations in the past. Thank you for your patience and thank you for your time. [Music] Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. And now to speak against

the motion, Douglas Murray. He's a best-selling author and founder and director of the Center for Social Cohesion, also a citizen of the United Kingdom, uh a member of the Church of England until recently. You you said that your study of the Quran, you said this in print, made you an atheist. That's right. I said Muhammad made me an Atheist. the the uh publisher said at the time, "That's that's a pretty provocative headline." I said, "Well, get somebody to do the next one." She said, "Um, I could find a Catholic who could say Muhammad made me

a Catholic." I said, "How about trying to make it a three-part article and get a third one, somebody saying Muhammad made me a Jew?" And that one would be the trouble. Douglas Murray, ladies and gentlemen, well, thank you. Well, thank you. It's a Great pleasure uh to be here tonight. I'm sorry to make this panel rather Britentric after my colleague Majid. This isn't an attempt by uh us to have a British takeover of the old colony or anything like that. Um uh but I was coming uh earlier from my own fallen empire um referring back

to my friend and colleague Ayan's comments earlier and uh I was um reading the paper as I'm sure all of you were doing earlier today. Maji had finished his comments by Talking about the importance of changing paradigms. I'm not sure this is about paradigms. I think it's about facts. Here are some facts in my newspaper earlier. Um, the Times Square bomber, of course, a man just up the road from here who tried to kill thousands of people. Only, by the way, didn't manage it because he set the 24-hour timing device to 7 a.m. instead of

700 p.m., 1900 hours was what it was meant to be. Uh, if he had have got that bit right, Thousands of New Yorkers would have died earlier this year. Again, I see further in the paper, um, 12 suspects arrested in France in a network trying to recruit people to go and fight American and other troops in Afghanistan. I turn to another page of the newspaper and the city I've just flown off from this morning, a Muslim London underground worker who was uh had written to his wife who's off to try to become a martyr for

Allah as he says. He says, "More Than anything, I wish Allah to grant me martyrdom." Um, ladies and gentlemen, we have to look at facts. We should also just quickly, if I may, refer something to the wording of tonight's debate. Ayan's already mentioned this, but I mean, let me put it this way. You're you're I'm sure liberal-minded New York audience, or at least I hope you are. Um, we'll see. Um, but, uh, I imagine that if the motion we had here tonight was Christianity is a religion of peace, We get to the Q&A, perhaps even

before, and somebody would say, if the other side were arguing for that, somebody would say, uh, what about the Crusades? Hm. What about that? And then there'd be some other clever clogs who'd say, "Um, I uh what about that Florida pastor the other week? That was a nasty business. That's Christianity for you." If we'd had uh tonight, Judaism is a religion of peace. The other side were trying to argue That. Sure. As anything, there'd be people popping up in the hall tonight saying, "Oh, there's this bit in one of the Old Testament books, really, really

bad. Uh all sorts of massacres going on. Why don't you talk about that? There might even be people trying to say that uh that religion that the argument that Judaism was a religion of peace couldn't be argued because people would say look at what Israel is doing and isn't that a direct response and so on. So let's not Have a debate about Islam and whether or not Islam is a religion of peace without talking about the facts to do with Islam. It's an absurd situation we're in where nothing that anyone does whilst being Muslim is

any responsibility of Islams. Yet anything anyone does whilst being a Christian or a Jew is responsibility of all Christians, all Jews. Let's make this as as as straightforward as I can. Take the categorization that eminent scholars Like Bernard Lewis, Iban Warrick have made. Let's say Islam is a very very complex thing. Uh and the best way I can do this in the very short time I have is say you have three Islams. Islam one, two and three. Islam one, the Quran and the life of Muhammad and the Hadith. Islam two, the tradition of the Sharia.

Islam three, what Muslims do now. The first of those things, Islam, the Quran and so on is bad. It is bad. There is a lot of violence in it. And what's worse, The peaceful verses are superseded by the violent verses. The violent verses also sadly are more numerous in number. Then you've got the life of Muhammad. Again, a bad man, a very bad man, it has to be said. Not a great role model if you look at it. Uh takes child brides, abuses a small girl, uh multiple wives, uh himself, a warrior himself, a war

criminal himself beheads uh uh Jews. Uh this I would have thought would be a signal of not great peacefulness. Um then you've got the tradition of the uh Sharia. Again, not great peacefulness. Still no schools of Sharia that people in this hall would want to submit to. And thirdly, what Muslims do now, thankfully, there is some hope in that one because most Muslims, thank goodness, I almost said thank God. But uh old habits die hard. Um uh most Muslims don't do what those texts say. um because they exercise their judgment as moral beings without having

to refer To defunct holy books. Now look, I wish that Zebra and Majid uh were the spokespeople of Islam. It would be lovely. Although in Majid's case, it would have taken rather too long if everyone had to go for 14 years preaching the downfall of America and then said, "No, not so much." But we'll we are where we are. Uh anyhow, I wish they spoke for Islam. It would be great. Uh but the fact is that tonight the organizers of this debate Asked a number of clerics. None of them would show specifically they wouldn't show

and debate against Ayan Hers Ali. Um myself I don't think they cared but um but uh but but no it's very interesting that they will not debate time and again Muslim the actual leaders of your religion will not debate this and you're left with people like we have here. The reason why is of course is that the leaders of the religion show such terrible uh uh terrible lessons. Uh It is not a small thing. It's not as it were a detail. It's not like a wacky Florida pastor that you've got the largest Sunni state of

Saudi Arabia, the most important Sunni state in the world, the most extraordinary closed prison of a society. It's not it's not a detail. It's not a a one-off nut job that the Shiite Republic of Iran is what it is, led by the people it's led by. That is not an accident. It's not a detail. The thing that worries me is that although Tonight we hear from the fellow panelists here about how Islam is a religion of peace. The fact is that the people who are making the decisions in the religion, the people who are preaching

in the religion, the heads of that religion, people like Shik Kharadawi who broadcasts anti-Semitic the most appalling filth every week on the main networks. That is the the the faith you the the speaking for you guys. I wish that Zeba you were on every uh Week on Al Jazzer but you're not. Karadawi is the problem is that Islam is an unstable component as a religion an unstable component. A thousand years ago the Muttazalites tried to reform the religion. they were wiped out. The fact is that Islam is many things, many, many things. But to say

it's a religion of peace is nonsense. It's to ignore reality. It's to ignore very difficult but necessary facts, not paradigms, but facts. To say that Islam is a religion Of peace is to say something based entirely on hope. It's to elevate a hope into truth. And I hope, as you all know, history teaches us that's a very bad thing to do. Thank you. Thank you, [Applause] Dr. And that concludes round one of this Intelligence Squared US debate. And here's where we are. We have heard opening statements. We're going to move into round two. Remember how

you voted in the beginning. We're going to move Into round two in which the debaters address one another directly. They will be taking questions from me and then questions from you in the audience. So, I just want to state where we are. This is an intelligence squared US debate. I'm John Donban of ABC News. We have two teams of debaters arguing out this motion. Islam is a religion of peace. The side arguing for the motion, Zeba Khan and Majid Nawaz have been arguing make the argument that the extremists do Not define Islam. Take away the

extremists and you have a religion of peace. The side arguing against Ionhers Ali and Douglas Murray argue it's not about extremists. It's inherent. It's inherent in the tradition. It's inherent in the scripture and it's inherent in the history. And to the question of of the the notion Ali of this not just being about extremists. You concede that there are extremists but that's you say not the problem. What about what about Your opponents? What about your parents? What about Muslims you know who do not adhere to a violent form of religion? Are they if the if

there's something about the faith themselves? Are they embracing spiritually something that is morally an illusion? Well, my parents and uh people like my respectful opponents here are ignoring the basic tenets of their religion when Muhammad the founder of the religion called out to all Muslims and that's how He won most of his wars by saying I have been ordered and all believing men have been ordered to attack and kill and maim anyone one unless they testify, unless all men testify to the fact that Allah is the one and only Muhammad is his messenger. My father

disobys that. Um well, Majid Nawas tried to obey that fast and then stopped obeying it. But the fact that that scripture is there and that history of militarism is there belies the notion That Islam is a religion of peace. The point I want to make is Islam is a religion when you take the scripture that can be employed to wage war and Islam as a civilization has known periods of peace. But you cannot if you pay attention to that history, pay attention to the evidence continue to say that Islam is a religion of peace. No

monotheistic religion is a religion of peace. No monotheistic religion is only a religion of war. It is both. But In Islam, and that's why we are debating it in the 21st century, there are more occurrences of violence and war and strife and subjection of women than there are in other religions. And my point, our point is, let's not deny it because by denying it, we don't solve the problem. Let's admit it and then as intelligent people take it from there. What is to blame on external factors? Let me go to your opponent Majaza who was

an extremist now an anti-extremist. Majun. So um I forgive me for the assumption Aan um it's a pleasure to be on the panel with you by the way but forgive me for the assumption but do you speak Arabic? Do you do have you studied Arabic grammar and and I I I'm asking for a purpose which if you do uh give me the chance to explain I will but but first of all just let me ask you that question. I don't speak it as well as you do and I want to know what where the question

is going before I give a full Answer to that. If you want me to quote you, you may be surprised. You may be surprised that I don't know if I speak well or not, but the reason I'm asking is that you just quoted a hadith of the prophet and you actually really did exaggerate what he said and and I'll quote to you the exact hadith in Arabic and then translate it. Now what you quoted was uh well the hadith is 193 now what you quoted and in the Translation was kill and maim and and he

went on and explained now actually means to fight now I'm not saying that that's a good hadith what I'm saying is when we're translating let's try and be accurate and that brings me to the point and that is that I've just thought of a word to describe this and it's just come to me so thank you because I'm going to use it forever onwards and that word is suspended intelligence there's a tend tendency when discussing Islam to Suspend the tools that we have learned and studied that you have studied as well that we use to

analyze every other piece of scripture and literature in the world and that is that we recognize that texts do not speak for themselves. We recognize that when we interpret scriptures and texts and books and poetry that they are contextualized, that we have methodologies to approach them. When we're reading Shakespeare, when we're reading anything, we Recognize that there's a way to interpret text and there are schools of thought and differences over how to approach texts. Now, if we contextualize Martin Luther and say the Reformation was a good thing, despite the fact that he said kill and

slay the peasants, where do you find them? when they followed Thomas Mona when he was calling for not just breaking away from the papal authority but also for rebelling against the monarchies and the dictators That they found themselves in Martin Luther sided with the tyrants against Mona and said kill the peasants wherever you find them despite that I'm prepared to say the reformation was a good thing and the reason I'm prepared to say that is that Martin Luther must not be judged by the standards of civilization that we after an accumulation of thousands of years

have arrived at he must be judged judged by the standards of civilization that were around during his time and That's how society evolves and we recognize that for every other faith and for every other piece of literature yet when it comes to Islam somehow we want to suspend what we've learned about that and quote verbatim from text yes we read things in their context I mean you read chauer in context chorser doesn't have followers doesn't have 1.4 four billion people who believe every meant to believe or are meant to believe Everything that does have followers.

If you allowed me to speak, I'd address your Luther point. You'll I'll get there. I promise. Right. Um you don't we we don't you don't have followers of Shakespeare who insist on or meant to be insist on line by line following everything Shakespeare did and believing everything he wrote. That's because it's literature. Actually, what's happening measured is you're sing you've point you've put your finger on the problem. It's not us that isn't applying the rigorous critical factors. We're applying them to the Quran as we would to any other work of literature. You're not because you

can't. And and and the final thing on that maj is that can I bring you back to my question? What is that? Is that true? If you were if you were allowed to contextualize, you would say some of the things that Muhammad did is crap. You would say some of the things, is it True that you cannot contextualize? Can is that true? No, it's not true. Now, can I say what do you think of Muhammad taking a six-year-old as a bride? What do you think of that? I don't think that's a particularly good idea. However,

what I would say is that it there are many, many people in history that have done such a thing. And what we're talking about here is the failure to contextualize actions for the standards of their time. And I'll come Back to the point I made because Douglas, you didn't address it despite your protestations that you were going to. Now, let me just ask you again. Martin Luther was a fundamentalist, wasn't he? Absolutely. All Christians would agree with you that he was a fundamentalist. Can I now answer majest if there were currently Lutheran? There are Lutheran

around. You meet them occasionally in Scandinavia and so on. Very nice. Very nice it is. And Peaceable guys they are by and large. If however there was a large proportion of Lutheran somewhere in Scandinavia that started blowing up non- Lutheran or no sorry let's be absolutely right started massacring peasants. Do you think that people would say hang on a minute let's not criticize Martin Luther he did that by the standards of his time. We shouldn't criticize his followers all that much and we shouldn't point out what he sends on. No we just say you Know

don't go and massacre peasants. Full stop. It was rubbish at the time. It's rubbish now. It's the same with the Quran. Let me see your point. If you're failing to judge, let me bring in your Oh, um I just wanted to point out in terms of when we talking about the Quran and saying that we can't contextualize it, that's simply not true. That's that is a debate that's hot in in the community amongst Muslim scholars and Amongst Muslims themselves. We're debating that very question. Is the Quran a living document? much like it's similar in in

uh comparison to the say the constitution and the and the debates that happen around that excuse me around that um the fact is scholars say that you know when you look at the Quranic Arabic there can be you know two three four five six interpretations for every word there's only certain things in the Quran that scholars agree are concrete Like the concept of God afterlife things like that but beyond that there is a wide wide range of interpretation which is why there is a history that not many people look at and that's part of the

problem that nobody's actually looked at the history of debate within Islam about every sort of aspect that can come to mind. I disagree with that. The reason why I disagree with it, it would be more accurate, Zeba, if you said the scholars that you find attractive say that. But There a bunch of scholars with a great number of following in Islam take and all of them are self-appointed by the way because there's no hierarchy. There's no seminary of Islam except a university of al- a and we know the products of al- aar but there are

scholars like bin laden who say we have to take he's not a scholar by anyone's well he has the greatest following he has the greatest following the Islamic brotherhood when you to look at the Sunni Islam when you look at Ayatahi in the 20th century the most influential guy of Shia Islam another self-appointed scholar you have all of sheh bin buzz. He has the greatest following. Maybe these are individuals that are not attractive to you, but then it would be more accurate if you stated that they are attractive to many Muslims, not thousands, but in

the millions. And what they say, and that's why they're influential, is they Challenge every single Muslim individual. Are you a true Muslim? If you are a true Muslim, you live by what the Quran dictates. You follow the example of the prophet their interpretation scholars who insist on that are far more influential, far more powerful than your spoken wonderful cuddly scholars. Well, you know, so aan you just quoted uh bin Laden as a scholar um and Hassan as a scholar. Bin Laden for those of you who don't know uh Is a an engineer, a qualified engineer.

So not don't know him. Why don't you define who is a don't know his history? He's a qualified engineer who comes from one of the richest construction families in Saudi Arabia and was educated in the elite private schools of Switzerland and Saudi Arabia. Hassan Alban that you referred to was a school teacher. And in fact, what you find common with all of the movements that you're worried about and that I'm worried about and we're all Worried about are that they are founded by people who do not have a theological background. Now for all we think

of alazar and their very conservative views what we don't find is that alazar produces the likes of bin ladin and hassa or even maldudi the founder of the jamati Islami in the Indian subcontinent maldi was a journalist say kutub the founder of modernday jihadism was a literary critic who came to America on a scholarship in the 1950s to study Literature he was not a theologian so coming back to the point don't influential the whole world who a Muslim scholar Because actually the people you refer to were not qualified theologians. But don't you touch on the

problem by by admitting this? Don't you touch on the problem that is inherent in Islam after the death of Muhammad that the problem of who speaks for Islam has not been resolved. It could be the two of you could be alaw. It could Be the question. What does that have to do with with Islam being a religion of peace? If you're you're you're almost making the argument that Islam is what you want it to be depending on how you behave. So if you behave peacefully, is it not a religion of peace to you? That is

a brilliant question. When you you can start by saying Islam is something to a different thing to 1.57 billion people and from that General point you can reduce it to what is it that unifies them and ultimately you will get to the Quran and the Hadith the Quran the Hadith the day of judgment the belief in the day of judgment and if you take those three concepts then it's far from a religion of peace because you look first of all not only at the content of the Quran in context fine I'm willing to contextualize it

but what if other believers are not and they're influential what if I want to read Muhammad's practices simply as a matter of history another great figure in history but more Muslims millions of Muslims don't want to do that and really want to follow his practice what if more and more Muslims invest in the hereafter more than they invest in life then we have a problem and and that's why I ask you to vote against the motion. It cannot be only a religion of peace because if it were only a religion of peace, if it were

perfect, why would we Have this debate? Why would we talk about reforming? Can you be 15 seconds? I promise. Um Majid's trying to imply that the whole extremist problem is a sort of misreading by engineers and literary critics. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. hasn't been historically in Islam and isn't now. Um Ayati uh who Ayan mentioned earlier was not a self-trained engineer rich boy like Bin Laden unfortunately and managed to hurtle a very developed distinguished Culture back in time in 1979 and hurtled this country back into the state it's currently in under these cloaked

dictators. The grand muy of Egypt is not a self going the other Muslims should go and fight the Israelis. So sorry on on Humeni. I acknowledge Humeni is a trained theologian and the fact is he came in the 70s Douglas and that proves something. What was he so famous for? Kmeni was recognized for Bringing a revolution in Shiite theology. And what was the revolution? Those of you who studied this will know that the revolution was that up until him, Shiites had been avowedly religiously secular because they believed no one had the right to rule in

God's name until the Messiah came and let them wait for that Messiah until the end of time. Changed that and turned it on his head. And if that proves something, it proves one thing and that Is it was not in it was not consistent with Islamic Shiite tradition. What he did was a very modern revolution influenced by his studies in Europe and influenced by modern European fascism. He broke from tradition and that's why it was called a revolution. He was not a continuence of Shiite tradition. It's the fault of the Europeans. In other words, it's

no one's saying the victim still. I want to ask you something about reforms for Islam. Does Islam need Reform? It needs a renaissance. It doesn't need a reform. Reform in the sense, and the reason I say that is because we have to be careful of our terminology. If we say reform as in reformation, we're thinking of a Christian context um where you had the Protestants and Martin Luther saying rejecting the Catholicism and and the pope. But the thing is in Islam there is no pope. There is no centralized authority. So there there can't be a

Reformation in that sense. What there needs to be a is a return to genuine Islamic principles which have been not studied, have not been in enforced and and forgotten. Um, so it it's it's not exactly that. All right. But a return to genuine Islamic principles is exactly what al-Qaeda is advocating. No, that's not actually what they're No, that's actually incorrect. A return a rega sense of two voices and I'm talking Now too at the same time. So I'm going to be quiet. I'm going to give you 20 seconds to make that point and then I

want to hear back. So think 20 seconds. When you look at the extremist organi the organizations that we've come to call extremist, what they're advocating when they answer the question, what went wrong? We had this empire. We lost it. How do we regain it? Their answer is a rebirth. Let's go back to the origins, a revival of it. Is that what you want, Zeba? No. They actually covert the language for their own political purposes. Al-Qaeda is is not calling for a return to Islam or to original Islam or anything like that. They're actually using Islam

as a cover for their political grievances. When you look and ask Muslims, ask 1.5 billion Muslims, when you look at the mainstream, they're 90%. They don't they're peaceful and and fine. When you look at the politically radicalized, when you ask them what do They fear most, they say Western domination and occupation. But when you ask mainstream Muslims what they fear, they say economic issues, unemployment. There's a clear difference. And so they're not what we we can determine from that is it's not religion because religiosity between the two is indistinguishable. How pious they are indistinguishable. It's

the one factor that makes the difference is what they focus on and their grievances against Perceived grievances against the West. But don't we get back to one of the core problems which you still haven't addressed which is the life of Muhammad and his teachings which is as follows is that if a Christian group decides to go back to the teachings of Christ you know the worst stuff they find is the sermon on the mount of olives uh um they can find one verse where Jesus is said I think the gospel of St. Matthew to have

said I come not to bring peace but a Sword but the rest of it is all love thy neighbor and all that sort of stuff. If you're a Christian group looking to go back to the sources of Christianity, you just find a lot of well hippie stuff for a lot of modern people. Um um so so what is it about this religion we're talking about tonight that you say as a religion of peace that when people go back to the origins, they find a founder who was violent teaching violence? See, this this this comes back

to what you mean by People going back to the origins. And I refuse as as does za and as we're asking for all of you to do is to refuse uh for Islam to be hijacked and monopolized by the bin Ladens of this world who want to tell you what it means to go back to the original sources. Now if that was the case then I ask you why is it that in Bangladesh where there was a free and fair election the Islamist party lost roundly. They completely lost the elections. in Pakistan where there were

Recent elections, the uh Islamist alliance in the north that came to prominence after the occupation of of Afghanistan uh they completely lost all their seats. So the Muslims in two of the most populous Muslim majority countries in the world as like as is the case in Indonesia whenever they have a chance to vote they do not vote for the Islamist extremists and time and time again in elections across Muslim majority states they have proven that Their interpretation of Islam and they are the majority is not the interpretation of Douglas Ayan and bin Laden. Now, I

don't want to be in that camp. All right, I wanna I want to take a little break and move on to the topic and the status of women in Islam. I'm John Donbin of ABC News. This is an intelligence squared US debate. We're at the Scurball Center for the Performing Arts in New York City. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. We have Two teams of two arguing for the motion. Zeba Khan and u sorry Zeba Khan and Majid Nawaz and arguing against the motion ayan hersi and Douglas Murray one of the here

in the west one of the issues that is very complicated for people in coming to terms with what they think Islam is is the status of women in Islam I'd like to go to Bakan take that on you know what I'm talking about the perception is that a lot for a lot of people out looking at the Muslim World and Muslim majority countries is that Muslim women are somehow they aren't um they're they're they're subjugated that they don't um to a point where they are intimidated to ask for their rights and to to demand them.

But that's not the case. I mean when you look at all when you look across uh Muslim majority countries if you look at Iran for example where there's zero gender gap in education by the way um men and women enjoy the same Amount of education obviously when you're that when you're at that level of education you're you're aware of what your rights are and what you're what you are demanding and so you know in in Iran and places like that they they are demanding their rights they are um pushing for them um in places like

Afghanistan or Pakistan where the where where the gender gap is larger um that gap obviously needs to be filled but there are women who are Pushing there as well there it's not um it's it's women that are stepping up and taking the lead on this other side response well when I try to define Islam as a religion religion there's expression you find in the Quran is expression after expression verse after verse and also in the hadith that women are subordinates to men that they have a guardian. They need to have a guardian. Their testimony is

worth half of that of men. They're in They can only inherit what half of what their brother inherits. When it comes to sexual offenses, women are the ones who get in reality where Sharia is implemented. And that is not only the practical side of Islam, but also the fellowship side of Islam. everywhere where Sharia is implemented and there are more places in the world today where Sharia as a family law is implemented and where it's not implemented on a political level but in all of those Places you see a subjugation of women you see honor

killings you see women who are denied education if you look on a global level the levels of illiteracy among women in the Middle East is appalling that's not something that I'm telling you because I'm you know whatever I misunderstand Islam but that report after report and the latest one is the United Nations uh UNDP human development report that was first published in 2002 and that was again Published in 2003 2004 and if you follow these reports this is empirics this is not uh something that I'm imagining the situation of women in the Middle East in

Muslim countries is dire and the principles the principles that underlight and the practices are Islamic it's Sharia law in action and the appalling The nightmare, the nightmare is women who have fled those countries, who are now in the west, citizen, American citizens, European citizens are Subjected to parts of Sharia law. And Zeba, I think that denying that kind of not just as a matter of debate, but I I then try to question where does your solidarity lie as a woman who grew up in a free country, a free woman, and as vocal as you are.

Shouldn't you be more solid with them? I am. I am. But I don't want to I don't want to to the the I absolutely am and as all women should be and actually all human beings should to to demand the rights of Equality. In fact, most Muslims want equal rights for their for the women in their societies. And if you and if it goes to just go to the research, go to the polls, go to the research and what it says. When you ask men, should women have equal rights? Majority in in in the countries

surveyed in in in the Gallup survey said yes, they should have equal rights, including in Saudi Arabia. Just um I want to acknowledge that there a lot more needs to be done and a lot More needs to be said about uh eliminating some of the practices that you refer to, Aan. And I I I recognize uh that there are practices in Muslim majority societies across the world that are repugnant not just to a western mind but generally to anyone any decent rational human being. Um but I want to approach this being a man uh and

the first man on the panel to comment on this question. I want to approach this from a slightly different angle and that Is this that many of you in the audience are men and if if the law of average was to to to fall true then you'd be probably around 50%. Now how many of you uh would be comfortable with your spouse, your wife as your boss at the same time? Uh and it may sound you know it may actually be a truism because for many people in a marriage the boss is the wife. But

the reason I'm asking that question is that even in times like today many men find that uncomfortable To be married to their boss. And yet Ayan who referred to these practices that were repugnant to us and said that they are sourced in Islam. The founder of Islam, the prophet Muhammad, his boss, his first wife was his boss. And many people don't know that. And so what I want to uh demonstrate by this point is that it's a complex matter. There are practices in Muslim majority societies that we need to reform. But it's too simplistic to

trace them back to the Life of a man who lived400 years ago and in many of his practices was quite revolutionary for his time and in others was like every other man during his time. So the fact that he referred to Douglas referred to the fact that he had uh that he had a bride that was underage is something which we can now look back on and say that was an awful practice. But we just as we look back on on many things that Romans did and say that was an awful practice. just as we

look back On many things that Martin Luther did and said that was an awful practice. But we don't judge these men by the standards that we have today. Let's bring in Doug. No, no, we do. And we should um we should match it. And may I say it's a bit too cutesy to compare a man who raped a 9-year-old girl repeatedly with uh men being, you know, kind of, you know, the wife's a bit of, you know, master of the household and so on. A bit too cutesy and a bit too much Avoiding the issue,

which is this. This is actually a very real concern which doesn't just apply in mid7th century Arabia. But today here and now in Britain in my own country we now have uh thanks to the uh to to an arbitration act put into law in the 1990s whereby people can have uh civil disputes arbitrated uh under under laws they they they can decide on that. We now have Sharia courts in Great Britain. And the Sharia courts that in Great Britain are Operated by people who are actually clerics. They are um religious authorities. There's one at the

moment. You know him well, Sadiki in in in Leicester. Now, now this man runs a set of Sharia courts. A couple of years ago, it turned out that we we found out a little bit about the sort of thing he was he was deciding. And sadly, again, it's not reformist stuff because when you go back to the Sharia, people take the lessons from it and they make Judgments like the following. six women, six women who had gone to the Sharia courts because they were being physically abused by their husbands. Uh they were persuaded to drop

the cases because this should be a matter between a Muslim woman and her Muslim husband and the Sharia court. This should not be a matter for the police in Great Britain in 2008. That stinks. What's more, there was in another case a local man, a local Muslim man died. His will was arbitrated By Sharia because that was that was what happens now in 21st century Britain. and the arbitration of this man's will gave half the inheritance to the daughters as to the sons of the man because that's what you have in the Quran. So it's

all very well to say justice actually said that he agrees with you that this stuff needs to change. But the point is is that when you look at the courts that are doing this, when you look at the religious authorities, when you look at The clerics, the judgments they're making, those are the kinds of judgments. I wish that Majid would get some clerics on his side who could set up rival Sharia courts that didn't decide that women were secondass citizens. But sadly at the moment that is the case. Douglas, actually the irony was, as you

know, well, that the person who came out most publicly in support of those regrettable Sharia courts in the UK uh was the Archbishop of Canterbury. And we at Quilliam opposed their creation. And actually, many Muslims in Britain do oppose their creation because it raises the question, Islam has never had a clergy. It's never had a pope. And so when you try and institute Sharia courts as law, the question arises, whose Sharia do you follow? Now that's an internal debate that's going on and raging and that I'm part of in Pakistan for example because there isn't

one version of Sharia and everything you've Referred to is bad. We condemn these practices but the fact is we can't call them we can't be reductionist essentialist simplistic lack nuance and call it Sharia because there isn't one Sharia as you well know just as there isn't one reading of Shakespeare. All right I want to I want to I want to move on and when we come back we're going to take questions from the audience. No one's hands. All right. So, we're going to go to questions from the audience Now. And if you raise your hand,

what I'll do is uh take a cluster of questions and then u start uh presenting them to the to the panel. And I just want to remind you if you'll get a microphone, please stand up and hold it about two fists away from from your mouth so that the radio can pick you up. And please uh please keep it uh as tur as possible on the right against the wall there. and blue shirt here And eyeglasses and green. All right, so you'll get 30 seconds to ask your question. It makes me nervous that you've got

something written down on a piece of paper. Under 30 seconds, I promise. All right, go ahead. Za, in your opening remarks, you said that Islamic terrorists are motivated by politics, not religion. Considering that Islamic terrorists make up the majority of suicide terrorists in the world today, what's happening to Muslims Politically that isn't happening to any other major religious group that can account for the disproportionate amount of terrorism coming out of the Islamic world? Bingo. That was a good question. Yeah, that is under 30 seconds. Yeah, that that was a great question. Um, you're number I'm

going to take the questions and then number two. Yeah. Yes, I'm ready for you. Oh, I'm sorry. There with the microphone. Yes to you, Sir. My question was relatively similar, but I'll make it. This has to do with the Muslim community's reaction to suicide bombings. Um, you stated there's 1.5 billion Muslims and yet the silence of this community on suicide bombings. The justification, the rationalization, the the wiggles from the community, from the religious community, from the Muslim states, Arab states and Muslim states is something that in the west we find puzzling. How would uh the

panelists React to that? Thank you. And third question, I hope this isn't too naive, but if religion is if Islam is not a religion of peace, is it possible for it to become one? That's a Well, I think that's a great question actually. Um I was trying to get at that with the reform issue, but I just think you put it far more eloquently. So, um I'm going to take all those questions because I thought they were all good. Sa do you want to take the response to the first One? basically why the preponderance of

terrorism the question you're saying is committed by Muslim extremists why are we not seeing that happening from other groups um so what I don't I can't say is I know that the it's a complicated question and so you have you have history involved you have different factors that contribute to the answer what I can say for sure just based on looking at the studies that come out is that the level of religiosity the level Of piety of violence of of terrorists um compared to mainstream Muslims is virtually there's no difference. So it's it's literally when

you ask them how how practicing they are, how how far how often do they attend uh services, things like that, it's literally the same. So that can't be the distinguishing factor. the but we what we do know as I mentioned earlier is when you ask them the one big difference is when you ask them what they fear the most and they Say uh their perceived uh idea of western domination which is very similar to what we hear from our opposition a perceived fear of Islamic domination and so when you compare that to the mainstream who

just want to get a job would the other side would the other side like to respond to that question as well or to the answer that you heard and if not we'll move on well I'll move on. Okay. Can I just add something? Sure. No, sorry. Um there's also I think just To add something that that um the preponderance has a lot to do with um the spread of a certain ideology that I refer to as Islamism that has arisen in the postcolonial context and that was exported to the Middle East through uh geopolitics. Now

what happened was that there was a a need for a cause to resist against uh colonialism and Britain was a secular liberal country. the cause of the ideology that that the Arabs adopted who were resisting initially it was Arab Socialism baism and that morphed into Islamism which owes much of its origins to Arab socialism and so what we find is that the spread of this ideology pretty much like how post world war I Europe with the identity crisis that emerged after the VHimar Republic led to the growth of fascism in Europe with fascism in Italy

Nazism in Germany and and totalitarian stalinism in the USSR we see the same thing playing out post empire in the Middle East so what it's Related to is the spread of this ideology that has hijacked the minds of many young Muslims and yes Muslims need to do more to challenge this ideology. We are trying to convince them of that but this is a very modern phenomenon. I remind you Kumeni is a modern phenomenon and he created a revolution where he flipped Shiite theology on its head as as are the others. Bin Laden said Kotto they

are all modern phenomena. Okay Maj you have awakened the other side on this Topic. Yes, because mouth shot Majid. What you're saying is Islamism is invented by the British. Islamism has nothing to do with Islam. External, external, external. Those poor Muslims who are seduced with the Quran and the activities of Muhammad, their own culture, their own convictions, their own history, they have, you know, they are Only the victims. Ideas inspire, ideas unite, ideas people bring together. And Muhammad succeeded first and foremost in uniting a desperate bedwin desert Arab group of people. and they unified and

they conquered and when it worked it was all Islam. When Muslims were successful when they conquered lands it was all great it was Islam. Now that we're faced with this problem it's Islamism and it was created by the British Empire. I Just want the other side I don't think we will ever be able to address this issue if we systematically refuse to acknowledge and that is what that side of the panel is doing. So let me finish it. To systematically systematically refuse to acknowledge the flaws of Islam. I grew up as a Muslim. I left

Islam. Why did I do it? Because I couldn't hide away from the blemishes. And I believe we can improve that. I can believe we can Inspire young Muslims and the youth bulge. There are millions and millions of young Muslim men under the age of 30. That in itself is a source of violence without it being Muslim. We can inspire them if we can only acknowledge that part of the problem is us, not just the British. I'm not saying it's the fault of the British. If I was going to say that, I would would have joined

a very successful British law. What's Islamism got to do with Islam? I'm I'm saying to You, I would have been a lawyer and I would have got on with my life. I'm taking responsibility for that and I'm trying to get others to take responsibility for the growth of Islamism within Muslim minds and challenge that. So, no one's blaming the British and no one's question. The second question was on the topic of and we you almost got to it in your last answer Majid but the second question was where is the clearcut broad condemnation Of terrorism

from Muslim leaders. Yeah. So um there there have been many many such uh fatwas or pron pronouncements against suicide bombings. Uh many in many cases they're not reported. There does need to be more. However, I'll give you an example of why in some cases there aren't more. Now recently we at William publicized a fatwa by Dr. Tar Khadri against terrorism. no ifs no buts condemnation of suicide bombing and terrorism that Douglas always a pleasure To speak with you on the panel supported um and was quoted in the press as supporting Dr. Taradri's fatwa against terrorism.

Now the reason why there aren't uh many more such examples though there are quite a few is because prior to Dr. Al Kadri issuing this fatwa. His colleague who was also from the same way of thinking was assassinated in Pakistan was killed by a suicide bomber in a mosque where all the other congregants who were praying were also blown to Smitherines because he had the guts to simply give a sermon in that mosque condemning suicide bombings. And so this is why many people are scared because it takes guts, I tell you, to go into Pakistan

and try and challenge these extremists. That's a country that doesn't have much rule of law. It's a country that's struggling against the so-called Pakistani Taliban from taking over a third of their country and they're fighting that fight on the front Lines and there are those who are brave enough just to give a speech to condemn terrorism and they're blown to smitherines in their mosque while praying and and and surely they're religious people. They were praying in a mosque. You did support that fatwa, didn't you? I did. It's the only time I've ever done a book

review of a fatwa. Um um the um I'm sorry to say this, imagine you seem to have just proved our point. Yes. Please explain. Is it is it I mean I'm very grateful. It's a very important and very interesting question why more people don't stand up. I much admire Aladri for that fatwa as I have other people who have stood up. But the number of times I've spoken to behind closed doors and so on. And you say why aren't you saying anything? They they say because if I do speak up I'll be killed. Well I

address you again ladies and gentlemen to the Motion. Hold on. Sorry. Sorry. Right. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. H how how on earth how on earth does fear of being killed in Pakistan by a minority faction of extremists prove Islam is not a religion of peace? Let me put it this way. Let me put it this way then. No. So, sorry. I've got to because really what you've just said is really quite absurd and I've got to clarify. It takes one person to kill all of us here. One person in a suicide bombing. Now,

if we Were scared of saying what we're saying now because of that one person, it doesn't mean all of us love war and hate peace in any way whatsoever. It means we all fear that one person who could walk through that door with a suicide bomb. If we were discussing Quakerism here tonight, does anyone think that when a Quaker said, "I'm quite fearful about speaking up against certain things, my Come on. This only happens with Islam. There is no other major Faith in the world today where it is the case that people are fearful of

addressing religion because they're afraid they'll be killed. It's only Islam." And we're saying there's a reason being killed by apostates. And many of you who came here tonight came under unusual circumstances. I'm not in government. I'm not a powerful person. I'm a citizen. I mean, just a normal. What do you mean by unusual circumstances? Unusual circumstances. You went through metal detectors to come to a debate in New York. I mean, talk about That's because it takes one person to get through those metal detectors and blow us up. Let me finish. It doesn't mean the majority

of people are terrorist. Let me finish. Let me finish. the part the people that I am protected against and you as an audience too. The individual who wants to kill me because I'm an apostate of Islam is inspired inspired to do that from the Scripture of Islam, the example of the prophet Muhammad, the clergy that pre preached to him and the reward he will get in the hereafter that is promised in the Quran. All of that is Islamic. The sooner you admit that I tell you what he's inspired. The sooner you admit that, the sooner

I can get rid of my body. He's inspired. I'll tell you what he's inspired me. Yeah. Right. This this I want to have the last word On this point because I want to go back to the young lady's question. Sure. So I want He's inspired by the very same interpretation of Islam that you have. He's not inspired by Islam. He's inspired by your interpretation of it. That is Bin Laden's interpretation of it. That is saying's interpretation of it. And I've got to say one last thing. No, no. I'm going to say one last thing. The

thing is you're not the one the only one on this panel. I have an al-Qaeda Death threat on my head too because I'm saying what I'm saying. And what I'm saying is that and I've been attacked in Pakistan physically for saying this. What I'm saying is enough to extremism, enough to terrorism. Let's separate Islam from extremism and disempower the minority of extremists who are trying to hijack a good faith. Douglas, Douglas, you've had death threats as well. Minority. You have also had death threats for sure. I mean, one of the Points about this air is

everyone gets death threats. I mean, it's just an unfortunate thing. I think and I are going to leave this. I mean, as I say again, I think I think it speaks for itself. I hope no one threatens a chat. Can you re can you repeat the question that I liked so much? Yes. If Islam is not a religion of peace, is it possible for it to become one? My answer is yes. On condition that first of all, it's Islam is not a Religion of peace. And I hope that we have demonstrated here tonight that it's

not. Can it become a religion of peace? Yes, if a number of conditions are met. But what is it for all of the people who practice it peacefully? But let me let me complete the faith that they're practicing it peacefully. But we that's the part that I'm not finding in your explanation. Wh why are we having again over and over again first of all in my view no Monotheistic religion because there's that divider between we and they and because when that unifying I mean there are so many factors within every monotheistic religion that make it

inherently aggressive. It's not only Islam but there are a number of factors that in the 21st century combine again there's the history of militarism and the awareness of that there's the victim status there's the youth bulge let's not forget that there's the revival of that Theology the revival of the example of the prophet Muhammad the investment in the in the hereafter and you say a lot of people practice the religion in peace what we know is that a lot of people are passive and actually not practicing their faith are not practicing Islamic faith. Let me

finish. Let me finish. It's not for you to decide. I'm the Muslim. You're not. But let me let me let me finish. Let me finish. You are not practicing. You are not practicing. Are you No, but let me say you are not practicing. Let's hear what she says. Wait a minute. I want her. You are not practicing chapter 2 of the Quran verse 191 and 193. and slay them wherever you find them and drive them out of places once they drove you out for persecution of Muslims is worse than the slaughter of the non-believers. Chapter

two, let there be no compulsion in religion. Chapter two, each community which has given direction as it follows all of you Compete in the performance of good deeds. So we have so many verses no reliable argument. Let me prove my point. If you read the peaceful Start again cuz I was talking that proves my point. If you read from the Quran and you say it's a religion of no compulsion and you believe that that verse is practiced by a person like you, you will concede that there are other Muslims who will read the verse that

I just quoted and be inspired to engage in acts of Violence. And by the way, the verse that you just read, it has a latter part that says except the under. I'm sure every every part does and I can I can look at the Old Testament. But I want I wanted to complete the answer to the question. Let SA let Saba answer this. Um, sorry, what was the last point? Well, my last point was that it is both, it's not just a religion of peace. It's also a religion of war and both verses prove that.

Okay. But do you want to respond To that, Sab, or do you want to I think I'll come back if you want. Douglas, that is an important one. Ayan and I and people who who make some of the points we make are often accused of taking bits of the Quran out of context. I think you've just seen a very good example of it from the other side. I'm not saying that that isn't a good verse to live one's life by. One cannot just simply quote the verse about there being no compulsion in religion as though

it Doesn't have the other ones either with context as though it doesn't have a follow and asy has just showed you it has a follow on. So I think this gets back to the the very important question the lady halfway back there made which is whether or not this can be a religion of peace. I believe it can be and when I said earlier there are three types of Islam I identified said the first one the scriptures the life of Muhammad and so on bad. Second one, Sharia Interpretations bad. But thirdly, the way Muslims live

their lives today in this country and countries like it, that is our source for hope. And the source of hope for that is that they individually use like many people do religion. I'm not a religious person. Ayan isn't either. But we recognize the fact that people of religious faith have the right to that faith, should practice that faith, should have no fear of practicing that faith. There's no Problem with this. But it's a private matter and one which people come to very strange private arrangements about. And I just wanted to add this, which is that

if those people are going to be able to reform that faith into the religion of peace you're talking about, then yes, we would be the first people to encourage them. But if we're going to have that debate, as I hope we've shown tonight, it has to start with honesty. Let's do one more round. Start with frankness. We Have Donna. Do we have time for one more round? Yeah. So, I'm going to do it again. Um, I would I would love to hear from an audience member who is a member of the Muslim community if you

feel like speaking. And not that I'm profiling, but I saw a lot of blonde people raising. And again, I realize it's a complex world. Jane was blond. What kind of profiling is Allowed? All right, I'm going to take something from the left. Yes, blonde person, you can go. Anybody from the Yeah. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. And then on the on the right side. Yes. Okay. Ma'am, I see you. Yep. So, uh, again, remember that way that great question was phrased. That's how you do it. So for those in favor of the motion, my question is

um what she just read from the Quran, you know, you didn't you you Expressed that you didn't agree with it and clearly, you know, you're interpreting the religion as you will and in a very peacefully way in a very peaceful way. Um which is great, but you know, do you ignore those parts? How do you react to it? You you said there were multiple ways just like we interpret the constitution, there are multiple ways to interpret what the Quran is saying. I just want to know exactly how you interpret that chapter she just read to

Us. Thank you. To that end, I happen to be Roman Catholic, but my wife is Israeli and my son just went through his bar mitzvah. There was some pretty spicy stuff in Leviticus. Sure. Yeah, there sure is. But then Catholicism went through the reformation and enlightenment. Yes. Hello. Um I'm from Pakistan. I'm a Muslim from Pakistan. And I just want to comment on the suicide bombings. Uh there's one almost every week. And uh if You feel that as a nation after being destroyed repeatedly for uh since 9/11 uh we would still be sympathetic to extremist

sentiments uh when our you know two of my students were killed in suicide bombings. But what is your question? My question is I want you to I want you to consider what the the value of socioeconomic cultural factors uh political dictatorships what what role do those Factors play in making young people susceptible to extremism. Do you not do you not feel that Majid covered that in his remarks? Because I feel that he did. Well, I don't think the audience understands. Let me put it on hold then and then the third person. Go ahead. I have

a question for Ayan Hersci. Uh I'm a Muslim woman and she was referring to the subjugation of women. This has to do with uh the subjugation of women. I'm from India and Um my question is if women are not educated uh you know a lot you know a lot of Muslim countries that's the problem that the education women are not educated and when they're not educated they don't know what their rights are and so they're not going to demand their rights that's the whole point in not educating half the population but my question to you

is what does that have to do with Islam because according to my Understanding of the Quran. The first word that was revealed of the Quran to Prophet Muhammad was read. It had to do with education and the Quran. So I can you give me one question in one sentence? Uh yeah, I know you can. So go for it. Well, uh my question is what does what does that have to do with Islam? Because the Quran doesn't say that according to my understanding the education it doesn't say educate men do not educate women. Mhm. Nowhere in

the Quran have I found that. Let's take that last question first. Um I want to agree. Thank you so much for that question and I completely agree with you that uh women in the Muslim world today not all of them but most of them are denied education. The reasons that are given by those who do the denying are Islamic. They refer to the concept of guardianship. So the guardian has the authority to decide whether he sends a girl to school or not And for how long she goes to school. The main reason in Muslim countries

where girls are sent to school, Muslim communities where girls are sent to school, the main reason for pulling them out at the age of menstruation is the fear, the terror that they might lose their virginity. That modesty, sexual modesty that is demanded of girls which at first it preceded Islam. It was a tribal Arab culture elevated to religion in Islam Where people find within the Quran that in in the hadith that insistency on her virginity on her being a virgin on the night of her uh of her wedding. That is one of the main reasons

that is given. And if sexual emancipation were to occur within the Muslim world, and I want to challenge a guy like Majid Nawaz to take the forefront as a man by saying that you value a partner, a human being more than her highman. That would revolutionize Islam completely. That Would it would take girls would go to school. They would be independent. They would be able to they would be able to articulate what their rights are. And more importantly, they could make Islam a religion of peace because they would bring their boys up to be employable,

to be educated, and to renounce suicide killings and and martyrdom. Uneducated mothers, uneducated mothers are mothers whose children, whose boys bad guys can take advantage of. We're we're at the Point where normally we move on to our third round. We have these two questions standing out there and I'm gonna extend with everybody's acceptance a few minutes of this section tonight. Nobody seems to be leaving and no one's asleep. Um so um Majid if you can be very brief to that and then I want to get to the Well actually to be honest I value a

can of Diet Coke more than a man. I mean I I mean really everything's more valuable to me than a highman, especially a Woman. So I really don't understand the point of your question there. But but allow me to say however that every Muslim questioner from the audience today is not a true Muslim and every one of you who may be a Christian is not really a Christian and any of you who may be a Jew is not really a Jew because I have the absolute monopoly of defining all three of those religions for all

of you. Um and and and really the passages that because I'm I'm saying this because Of the of the first question and that is the passages that were referred to about fight them wherever you see them. Now the thing is really the founding fathers of this great country who wrote the constitution believed in slavery and were practicing slavery. Now does that mean that we're going to define the whole of America and its constitution by that practice or are we going to contextualize that practice and say that when they founded this country slavery And and abolishing

slavery was not at the forefront of their minds but later on it was abolished and that's an achievement for this country. It's not something that defines this country. And so likewise, these passages, yes, they can be used and they are used in a problematic way. And it's our responsibility, not just as Muslims, but as decent human beings, to go out there and challenge the abuse of these passages. But we must not forget that as With every other document in history, it had its context and it was abused. And now when we have gone exposfacto, we

can look back to that and judge it with a very civilized standards that we've arrived at and say that was wrong. Now perhaps let me put the time be defined as I want to put the question as it was phrased to to ZA which was how do you filter out Right. Exactly. How do you filter that out? How do So how do I interpret is what you're asking despite What our opposition says. I do have that right. Um and basically I I I look at my faith. I'm sorry. Well, who asked the question? Oh, okay.

I I ask um I look at my faith in the way I was raised with core Islamic principles which is how my family raised me and that I determined as an adult were correct which is compassion and tolerance and plurality and and strength and diversity because we are a diverse uh population. There are as many interpretations of Islam as There are people. And so the other point I want to make to that is that there are clergy and clerics who are um who who do stress this. I mean, if you look at 2005 at the

Aman message where 200 Muslim scholars from 50 countries stressed a re-emphasis of Islam's core values of compassion, mutual respect, acceptance, freedom of religion. Um, there there is precedent for this, not just for me as as a lay person, but from the clergy as well to reassert these these lost in Some in some areas lost uh values. Uh, Douglas, I do have this this is a very very complex one, but this has to be said. Majid's just given the comparison with the founding fathers and there has to be some clarity about this. This country rightly reveres

your founding fathers. But you don't think that their word was immutable or unchangeable? Yeah. You don't believe I don't know I don't think that anyone in this room who criticized Mr. Jefferson Now here tonight will be declared an anti-American apostate who can be fit for slaughter. The problem that our opponents have to address, they have to address this is that in a religion which is based on the idea that the Quran was dictated direct by God to Muhammad and that therefore if you are criticizing the Quran or throwing out bits or pulling it apart like

like most Christians and Jews most Christians and Jews have come to that stage but pretty Much you you you pick a mix with your holy scriptures and it's it's quite a good humane way around But with Islam, if this is the revealed word of God, revealed, it has to be said, as it was shown again earlier tonight, in a particularly obscure and unreadable uh dialect, uh which if it was meant to be understood by the whole of the world, it's a bad place to start. Um if if if this were the case, then as I

say, we come back to this problem. The founding Fathers did said many great things and did some bad things, but you are not committed as Americans not to criticize the bad things they did. And this is a problem our opponents are going to have to address. And that concludes round two of our debate. So here's where we are. We are about to hear brief closing statements from each debater. They will be two minutes each, and this is their last chance to change your minds and to respond to some of What's been said over the last

hour. You will be asked to vote once again and to pick the winner just a few minutes from now. But first, on to round three, closing statements. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. And speaking first against the motion, Ayan Herciel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of fundamentalist Islam. Islam is not a religion of peace. And I woke up to the facts on the 11th of September, 2001. Perhaps I should have woken up to the facts earlier, but I admit that I did that then at that time

talking to people of my faith, Islam, and my friends and discussing with them. I remember all kinds of facious arguments, but I remember one consistent thing and that was to exempt Islam from any criticism. It was culture. It wasn't Islam. But a religion is born in a culture and if that culture is not Peaceful then that religion is not peaceful. I was told it's politics. We've heard it tonight many times. It's not the religion. But Islam not only has a pious dimension but it also has a political dimension, a complex system of laws, a political

philosophy on how society should be organized. And if you look at that political system, it's anything but peaceful. What emancipated me from the order to submit my will completely to Allah, which in practice Means the concentration of power in the hands of a few was to learn to think critically. the Enlightenment vote against this motion and open up the flows of Islam for debate in order that Muslims, those who are not yet emancipated, may take charge of their own reason, of their own faculty, vote against the motion that Islam is a religion of peace and

toss toss that fallacy into the trash can of history. Thank you. Thank you. I Am Christina. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. Now to summarize his closing position for the motion, her position for the motion. Zabakhan, writer and advocate for MuslimAmerican civic engagement. Thank you. Um Fisel Sujad Sad Shazad um the underwear bomber and the the group of young men that were picked up in Pakistan. All of them were were for violence and trying To attack our country and and learn how to attack our country elsewhere. But the one thing else that

the media consistently forgets to mention or conveniently forgets to mention is who turned all of them in. It was Muslims. It was their family because that is a Quranic principle that you stand up for justice even if it's against yourself. And in this case, someone's son or several people's sons or the the underwear bomber's father who was Nigerian and not American did this um turned him in and author uh announc sent word to the authorities. Um and a senagaliz merchant was one of the first unreported but was one of the first people to see the

the times square attempted bomber. Our opponents have a very simplistic outlook on this on on the world and and what this what's currently at stake. They see it being Islam versus the West. But the truth Is it's not. It's it's a it's a it's between moderates and extremists of all kinds. And I urge you to vote for the motion because the overwhelming majority of Muslims, the facts are clear. They are peaceful. They're they're mainstream and they condemn violence against civilians and have no interest in terrorism which is consistently as the woman in the audience said

are attacking Muslims mainstream Muslims every day brutally And oppressing them because we don't accept their version of Islam. I'm asking for your help for as other people as as people of reason and of people of a moderate voice to support us as we fight them and and we are fighting them although we don't hear it as often in in the media which which focuses on violence and fear. But the fact is Muslims have always been fighting them. Zeva Khan, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our motion is Islam Is a religion

of peace. And here to summarize his position against the motion, Douglas Murray, bestselling author, founder and director of the Center for Social Cohesion. Thank you. Well, um, thank you for a very enlightening, I think, debate tonight. I think we on this side made it very clear that we don't think there's a fight between Islam and the West or Islam and civilization or anything else like that. We've made a very clear set of points Tonight. And one of those points which I hope people will bear in mind is we have said repeatedly that it is in

Muslims and their critical faculties, Muslims and their behavior, Muslims and their faith that we have hope and it is in people like you that we have hope for the future. And if the motion were that Islam a century from now could be a religion of peace and people would be quoting uh Zeba and and Majid and seinal moments like this and that they had Learned. Well, that would be terrific. But at the moment tonight, you're being asked to vote on whether Islam is now a religion of peace. Is Islam a religion of peace? I think

it is very clear that it is not. This does not mean, of course, it doesn't mean that Muslims are all violent. We would never make that point. We never have made that point. Nor does it mean that there isn't hope in the future. Nor does it mean that we have to have continual clashes till the End of time. But it means we have to start by being honest. We have to be frank about what we see in Islamic history, in Islamic is in Islamic conquests and in Islamic scripts. We have to be frank about that

in uh societies which uh Islam dominated uh conquered and subdued the peoples in the middle ages. Uh people who were not Muslims were sometimes allowed to remain in those societies but they were allowed to do so only by having secondass Status, demi status. Uh, I would ask you tonight, ladies and gentlemen, not to be demies, not to have second-ass status, not to vote for things because you think it's polite or because you think you have to say them, but because you think they're true. On that basis, the idea you could vote uh for the motion

tonight is absurd. Islam is palpably, demonstrabably, evidently not a religion of peace. Vote against this motion. Thank you. Thank You. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. and our final speaker to argue for the motion that Islam is a religion of peace. Majid Nawas, director of the Quilliam Foundation and formerly a member of a radical Islamist party. Thank you. Uh right, so I'm not going to ask you to be polite. I would uh dread to think that that's why you'd vote for the motion. In fact, what I'd like to do is give you

four reasons uh to vote uh uh basically four reasons why the Panel's arguments are incorrect and four reasons then to vote for the motion. Um and as for the failure of the panel, I think number one is that there's a failure to contextualize. As I've tried to say time and time again, there's a failure to contextualize history and texts and sources. Um, and there's an intellectual suspension that occurs when discussing Islam that simply doesn't occur when discussing the Constitution or any other piece of literature or Writing. Secondly, there's a failure to disclose. And as we've

heard from the panel, both of them, and there's nothing wrong with this, by the way, both of them are not believers of any faith, and that's their perfect right to do so. But they've made it clear their real agenda is with all religions. And I think we have to be honest with ourselves that actually religions can and have historically played much good and have have come to much good in the world Including the reformation despite the fact we have to contextualize it. Thirdly, there's a failure to nuance and as we've heard gross generalizations about Islam

by quoting isolated passages are being made. And fourthly, there's failure to be honest. Honest. And that honesty uh uh is is in refusing to recognize that the vast majority of Muslims where there have been democratic elections have refused to turn in the extremists as the examples I cited in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Now please vote for the motion and the reason I'd say that is reclaim Islam. Don't let the minority hijack it. Yes, even for those of you who are not Muslims, reclaim it because it's a faith like all other faiths that does need to be

redefined in current times. Secondly, vote for peace. This is not a vote for Islam. It's a vote for peace. And I'm sure all of us want peace. And thirdly, I'd say help the confused Muslims in the world, the Faction, the minority, the young minds like I was who are confused, help them make up their minds by giving them guidance, by giving them an olive branch and voting for peace tonight. And finally, I'd say that even if you're unsure, even if you think Islam is not a religion for peace, I would ask all of you here

tonight to vote, as we've heard the admission from the other panel, it can be a religion of peace. So vote for what you'd like Islam to be. If you'd Like Islam to be a religion of peace, vote for it. Thank you. Thank you. And that concludes our closing statements. And now it's time to learn which side you feel has argued the best. I'm against all religions. I just wanted to object. Okay. Now it's time to learn which side has argued best. We are asking you again to go to the keypad at your seat. That will

register your vote. We'll get this read out almost instantaneously. Our motion is Islam is A religion of peace. If you agree with the motion, push number one. If you disagree, if you're against the motion, push number two. If you're undecided, push number three. And we'll have the results in about a minute. Uh before we get there, I just want to say that uh this has been probably the most spirited debate that we've ever had. And uh I thought it was conducted uh mostly with respect uh and with honesty. And I want to congratulate all of

our panelists for Coming out [Applause] [Music] here. I want to uh I want to thank you and our audience. The questions were all excellent including ma'am the one that I didn't get to. So I apologize but it was a time issue but the questions were terrific and I want to thank all of you for coming through the metal detectors which were a metaphor in a way for the Situation that we're in and the reason that we're debating this topic but I would you should give yourselves a round of applause for being here and for taking

part in this tonight. Um I want to let you know that our next debate will be on Tuesday the 26th of October. The motion then is big government is stifling the American spirit. Panelists for the motion are former Texas senator and vice chairman At U. UBS investment bank Phil Graham and Art Lafer, a former Reagan economic adviser who is known as the father of supply side economics. Against the motion, NYU Stern Business School Professor Nuriel Robini and Laura Tyson who is a professor at the high school of business at the University of California in Berkeley

and a member of President Obama's economic recovery advisory board. Individual tickets are still available. You can get them by going to Our website and also upstairs at the Scurbball box office. Intelligence squared us is now on Twitter. You'll find us at twitter.com/iq2 us. You can follow us for announcements and interesting links and uh you can video of this debate you can find by following those links. You go to uh you can use hashiq2us and also you can tweet about what you thought about tonight's debate and its results. And you can become a Fan of Intelligence

Squared US on Facebook and by doing so receive a discount on upcoming debates. All of our debates as we've talked about uh are heard on more than 220 NPR stations across the country. Remember as you stand to turn your cell phones back on or you might miss important calls. You can also watch the debates on the Bloomberg television network. The this debate will start airing next Monday at 9:00 p.m. It will be repeated through The week at that 9:00 p.m. time slot. Visit bloomberg.com to find your local channel. Intelligence Squared is now one of the

most popular uh public affairs podcasts on iTunes and you can download that and listen to past debates at IQ2 US. All right, it's all in now. I've been given the results. Remember the team that changes the most minds is declared our winner. And here it is. Our motion is Islam is a religion of peace. Before the debate, 41% were for the Motion, 25% were against, and 34% were undecided. After the debate, 36% are for the motion, 55% against, 9% undecided. The side against the motion wins. Congratulations to them. Thank you for me, John Donban and

Intelligence Square US.