RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 Responses to “Opinion duel: debate between Mansoor Ijaz and Andrew C. McCarthy”

Comments

1. Baklava says:

   February 28, 2006 at 11:48 am

   Amazing debate so far. I do laugh at the PBUH (peace be upon him) at every mention of someone. Maybe it’s my insensitivity and lack of class but we are in the middle of a debate and you can’t let go of your religion for one second? I have respect for Mr. Ijaz, but I think he’s caught between what the Koran teaches and the result of what the Koran teaches versus his wishes for Muslims around the world. The 2 shall not meet. As Mr. Ijaz pointed out the Koran is unalterable as it is God’s Word whereas the Bible is believed by Christians to be merely inspired by God and was left to interpretation. In so doing Islam supercedes all other religions and the Koran does teach to fight unbelievers and slay apostates.

   It is a terrible tragedy that we live on this planet with such mentality. And what can be done? It’s either submit or they have to change so that we don’t have to submit. Which one will happen? Well. I won’t submit so that leaves the other choice… depending on how many are with me. Are you with me?
2. Baklava says:

   February 28, 2006 at 11:57 am

   I did read this part from Ijaz:

   Almost every single passage in the Koran–and I tell you this as a person who has read it over and again–that has to do with the killing/maiming/go kill the Jews stuff, or whatever other phraseology there is in the Koran which non-Muslims believe is derogatory and anti-human, refers to God’s commandments on His followers for events at that time that had to do with the struggle to have Islam triumph as the accepted norm of religious belief.

   This, the same way that Prophet Muhammed’s acceptance of God’s command to have Muslim men marry multiple times was never about arranging sanctioned sex orgies but rather about giving shelter to widowed women and orphaned children during the years that Islam’s early followers were slaughtered in the thousands so that their families would be looked after.

   To which McCarthy said, “Why should a Muslim believe that Allah meant such directives only for the 7th Century but not for now?

   To which Ijaz said, “Second point. Since you are not Muslim, you cannot know what we are taught and what we are not. Just as I never learned the Bible in your ways in school and must rely on your understanding, you never learned the Koran in my way. Therefore, when you say it is not possible to know, you speak only for yourself and others like you who, mostly for good reason, just don’t know any better.

   So… I hope the debate gets to what in the world will anyone do to stop Radical Muslims or Islamofacists from teaching the Koran differently than Ijaz learned it.

   McCarthy can be accused of not knowing 50 times. It still doesn’t change our perspective that there are Islamofacists around the world in 23 “conflicts” due to their beliefs.
3. Baklava says:

   February 28, 2006 at 4:32 pm

   Ouch, Ijaz came back with, “but taking the position that unless I simply fold and agree with you that Islam is evil, as you see it, from its root source leads us to one conclusion–and one conclusion only, that there is no solution.

   And this, “Part of the problem here is that if we believe, as you propose, that Islam is irretrievably evil or structurally proposes destruction of all of what the world has evolved into, what do you see as the rational course to follow? That we kill all Muslims?

   To which McCarthy came back with, “you are grossly misrepresenting my position. I never said “Islam is evil.” I don’t ask that you agree with such a position, because it is not my position.

   Then McCarthy summed it up best (for me anyway) by asking, “My position is that Islam is dangerous. It has many very desirable qualities, but it has many troubling aspects. It seems to me that this debate is about three things: (a) are the troubling aspects problematic because the doctrine itself is problematic or because it has been misinterpreted in these particulars; (b) if the problem is in the doctrine itself, is it permissible to revise the troubling aspects; and (c) assuming we are dealing something that can be either revised (i.e., because it is undesirable as it currently stands) or reinterpreted (because it is fine as it currently stands but has been misconstrued by Muslims), is there a revision or reinterpretation sufficiently compelling that it can win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world?

   McCarthy also followed up with, “With due respect, it is simply inane for you to suggest that I have said Islam is “irretrievably evil” such that the only “rational course” that follows from my viewpoint is that “we kill all Muslims.” I won’t say anything more about that than that it is beneath you.

   Ijaz then moved to higher ground asking a for McCarthy to, “offer food for thought on how reform of the followers might be achieved

   I think this accepts the premise finally then that there are Islamists who interpret the Koran differently than Ijaz and now the question is WHAT do we DO about it?
4. benning says:

   February 28, 2006 at 10:53 pm

   After reading part of the way down in the debate, I realized that I had a question which supercedes the one these gentlemen are debating: Who cares?

   Whenever I hear the latest reasons behind the latest horrific outrage perpetrated by the Islamist Hero of the day, I recall the line from “The Fugitive.” Tommy Lee Jones, after being told by Harrison Ford that Ford is not guilty of the crime for which Ford was convicted, replies, “I don’t care!”

   Frankly, when it comes to the reformation of Islam…I don’t care!

   Screw ‘em! Give us the Jacksonian version of War in the GWOT, and remove the problem – for all time!

© 2003 - 2009 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters