– My Take –
Unbelievable! This first of a kind debate about Islam and NO Major Media presented the story! Why? Because the the audience after the debate did what anyone does after being presented with the facts; rejected the long standing bull crap motion that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. The Kansas City Star ( * ) ran the story along with a few ‘business wire’ posts??
But the most important question about this subject is – How was this centuries long knowledge about the horror at the heart of the Koran lost ? Possible answers; 1) Widespread suppression in our times of knowledge on the issue, 2) the repressive new left/liberal philosophies that swept our campuses in the 60’s- political correctness and multiculturalism, 3) good people don’t recognize true evil because they cannot relate to it, 5) Islam has promulgated the greatest propaganda hoax in history by identifying itself as not only a “religion” but even as a “religion of peace”, and 6) The Good Guys have become weak and stupid in allowing this ideology to exist among a civilized society.
This profound and timely admonition by Leonard Magruder (*) sums it all up:
Once you grasp that Islam has commingled God and murder, and that Muslims are called by Allah to dominate the world, through slaughter if necessary, as allowed by their religion, then it is clear that there is no solution to terrorism but the eradication of Islam.
Here’s Leonard Magruder’s Take
PASSIONATE DEBATE ON ISLAM BEFORE A SOLD-OUT CROWD IN NEW YORK
Audience Rejects the Motion that Islam is a Religion of Peace
Public Debate Questions Peace Within Islam
by Chloe Coffman
New York University Daily Student Newspaper
Published October 7, 2010
“Hundreds of people poured into the Skirball Center last night to take part in a debate on one of the more controversial issues facing the country today — the growing militarism of Islam. The motion for the debate: “Is Islam a religion of peace?”
The debate, moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, featured four panelists, two speaking for the motion that Islam is peaceful and two speaking against that position. In support of ‘Islam is Peaceful’ were writer and advocate for Muslim American civic engagement Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz, a former Muslim extremist who now speaks for Amnesty International . Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who leads a campaign to reform Islam, and bestselling author and award-winning journalist Douglas Murray opposed the argument, linking Islam directly with violence.
While a number of arguments were brought to the table, the dialogue was mainly rooted in questioning the original Islamic principles of violence against the doctrine of peace, both of which are dealt with in the Koran. The main issues raised included the necessity to put the more violent passages of the Koran into historical context.
Prior to the debate, the audience was polled as to what they thought about the issue, and results showed 41 percent were for ‘peaceful’, 25 percent were for ‘violent’ 34 percent were undecided. (This was a true Oxford type academic debate, with opinions being polled before the debate, and then after to see which side won the debate.) At the end of the debate, the opposing side concluded that while reformed Muslims do exist in the Western world, existing extremists are living by the Koran in its entirety, including the violence it contains.The arguments of these two proved overwhelming. After the debate, poll results revealed a drastic change from the results at the beginning of the night — 36 percent were now for ‘peaceful’, 55 percent were for ‘violent’ against it and 9 percent were undecided.”
Let’s look at this reversal carefully:
Before the debate: 41 % peaceful, 25% violent, 34 % undecided
After the debate: 36% peaceful , 55% violent, 9% percent undecided
Having given a number of talks on this issue I can tell you that results like this are inevitable. The arguments and the scientific data from content analysis demonstrating the inherent violence of Islam is simply too overwhelming.
We do not a have a tape of this particular debate. But this is how most discussions on this issue invariably go. As you see here, both sides must first begin by acknowledging that the Koran contains both violent and peaceful verses. But at this point one or the other of the participants is certain to point out the principle in Islamic rules of interpretation of “abrogation”. The violent verses of the Median, or later verses, nullify the earlier or Meccan peaceful verses, otherwise there are contradictions in the Word of God. So that leaves the violent verses as the only issue. At which point Muslim apologists always argue that the West takes the verses out of context. But this argument clashes with another rule they must adhere to, that the verses of the Koran come direct from the being of God, and cannot be interpreted in any other manner than literally.
Here. Contextualize these. Verses directly from the Koran:
Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided. 4:56 Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 4:74
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89
Believers shouldn’t kill believers, unless by mistake. If you kill a believer by mistake, you must set free a believing slave. 4:92
The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101
Allah will lead them astray and they will go to hell. 4:119-121
Allah will not allow disbelievers to succeed against believers. 4:141
You must believe everything Allah and his messengers tell you. Those who don’t are disbelievers and will face a painful doom. 4:150-151
For the wrongdoing Jews, Allah has prepared a painful doom. 4:160-1
God will guide disbelievers down a road that leads to everlasting hell. 4:168-169
Allah has cursed the Jews and hardened their hearts. Nearly all of them are treacherous. 5:12-13
Christians are disbelievers for believing in the divinity of Christ. 5:17
Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.. 5:33
Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38
Allah makes some people sin. He will not cleanse their hearts. They will have ignominy in this world, and in the Hereafter an awful doom. 5:41
Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them. 5:51
Jews and Christians are evil. 5:59
Evil is the handiwork of the rabbis and priests. 5:63
The Jews rejected and killed Allah’s prophets, since “they were willfully blind and deaf.” 5:70-71
Christians are wrong about the Trinity. For that they will have a painful doom. 5:73
Stay away from those who “meddle with” or mock the Quran. 6:68
Those who disbelieve will be forced to drink boiling water, and will face a painful doom. 6:70
Most unbelievers are ignorant. 6:111
Allah allows some to disbelieve in the afterlife, and to take pleasure in their disbelief, so that he can torment them forever after they die. 6:113
Allah has made devils the protecting friends of disbelievers. 7:27 Allah forbids beliefs that he hasn’t revealed (i.e., all non-Muslim beliefs). 7:33
Once you grasp that Islam has commingled God and murder, and that Muslims are called by Allah to dominate the world, through slaughter if necessary, as allowed by their religion, then it is clear that there is no solution to terrorism but the eradication of Islam. This should not be a shocking idea. There have been numerous religions that were harmful to mankind that had to go. Two in particular come to mind.The Aztec religion which called for tearing the hearts out of conscious human beings on top of the temples of Tenochtitlan , and the ancient Semitic deity Moloch, into whose fiery arms parents threw their infants. Mankind cannot live with any religion that calls for violence to honor God. Do not Muslim fathers murder their daughters to “honor”Allah ? Do not mothers in Palestine strap explosives on their children and head them into destruction to “honor” Allah. Do not Muslim behead “unbelievers” to the screams of “God is great.”
It proves how left/liberal faculties, and the mainstream media, have brainwashed everyone into the myth of, “Islam is a religion of peace.” It shows that when allowed to hear the facts from history, military,and counterterrorism experts, radical changes of opinion will occur, as demonstrated here. As one who often speaks on this subject, I have seen this change repeatedly. When people see the multiple verses inciting murder directly from the Koran and have explained to them certain Islamic rules regarding ‘contextualization’ and ‘abrogation’, plus the 1400 years of Islamic horrors they inevitably abandon the myth of Islam as a peaceful religion.
But since discussion of this issue on campus, or in the media for that matter, is rarely allowed, this means that the vast majority of the American people are being deliberately kept in ignorance of the true nature of the enemy the nation faces. and that means a lack of motivation to implement a credible deterrent, such as warning Muslim nations that we know what Islam intends, world domination, and of catastrophic retaliation if there is any other attack on our soil. In other words, media and academic elitists, to protect their various philosophical mythologies would never allow this question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace ” to arise to the level of a debate.
As you see here, both sides must first begin by acknowledging that the Koran contains both violent and peaceful verses. But at this point one or the other of the participants is certain to point out the principle in Islamic rules of interpretation of “abrogation”. The violent verses of the Median, or later verses, nullify the earlier or Meccan peaceful verses, otherwise there are contradictions in the Word of God. So that leaves the violent verses as the only issue. At which point Muslim apologists always argue that the West takes the verses out of context. But this argument clashes with another rule they must adhere to, that the verses of the Koran come direct from the being of God, and cannot be interpreted in any other manner than literally.
Above taken from Leonard Magruder’s THE BATTLE OF K.U. – BULLETIN #9 – Read More at
