On March 11, 2012, Muslim Apologist Nadir Ahmed debated me on the subject of violence in the name of Islam. The debate took place on my KCBQ radio show without commercial interruptions and was timed by a moderator, co-host Mike Fredenburg. In addition to the listeners who witnessed this event live on the air, close to 2000 have downloaded this program so far off of my website. It is linked below for the interest of any Rostrafarian
My position was that although there are many peaceful Muslims in the world, and that we must evaluate each and every Muslim on a personal basis, the Koran itself and the example of Mohammad really does command Jihad.
Nadir insists that such Jihad commands are in the Koran only for defensive and protective purposes.
After opening statements and rebuttals, I inserted a discussion of Israel and the Palestinians during our Q and A. Some might think this was a tangent. Indeed, I have not seen it come up often when Muslims and Christians debate. I brought up Israel for two reasons:
1) Nadir stated at the beginning of the program that early Muslim battles were waged for the purpose of protecting Jews from Christian genocides. Therefore, I wanted to see how Nadir felt about the fact that many Muslims today do not recognize Israel’s right to even exist.
2) Frequently, when Muslim spokespeople are asked to renounce terrorism, the violence is obligatorily criticized, but then, almost in the same breath, we hear something about Israel being “just as much of a terror threat.” For this reason, it seemed proper to correct some of the historical revision about the Middle East. All too often, Israel’s “occupation” or America’s oil interests are given as reasons for uprisings, when truthfully, a lot of Muslims are committing violence because of Jihad commands in the Koran.
Several times during the debate, Nadir said I sounded hostile or angry. I did speak quite passionately while listing some of today’s Muslim atrocities, and next time I am given such a chance, I promise to speak every bit as passionately. But I was feeling no anger toward Nadir, neither did I say anything disparaging to him personally. He was treated with respect and his discussion of my alleged anger seemed like a distracting Ad Hominem. Still, since he raised the issue of hostility, I invite the audience to listen carefully to Nadir dubbing me a terrorist “worse than Osama Bin Laden” for using Bible prophecy to justify Israel “stealing Arab land.” He said it with a gentle, friendly voice but his actual words should be noted. In fact, no mention was made of Bible prophecy. (Not that doing so would be a demonstration of terrorism anyway.) Instead, I spoke about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict purely from a human rights perspective with undisputed historical fact.
Despite the intense subject matter, I enjoy these debates. Nadir has agreed to come on my show again.
Here is the link: Nadir Ahmed, Muslim Apologist, Debates Bob On Subject of Muslim Violence
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net
Many comments to posts are discussed by Bob over the air where anyone is free to call in and respond/debate. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170.
Comments 13
There is big tent conservative philosophy at work. In case you didn’t catch it, the most recent survey suggests that 2.6 million Americans are of the Muslim faith. Importantly, they tend to have slightly HIGHER incomes and educational attainment levels than the general population – perhaps just the kind of furtile field to be plowed by conservatives stressing individualism, freedom and limited government.
And yet, for really no explicable reason, we use word like “apologist” or suggest an ENTIRE RELIGION – one whose by its very nature is diverse and non-monolithic is violent. And then people wonder why we continue to LOSE in a demographically diverse United States.
If Bob wants to hone up on his biblical scholarship he should do a quick reread of Samuel Book 1 – in which G*d commands to “UTTERLY destroy all (the Amalekites) that they have, and do not spare them”, explicitly calling to Samuel to commit genocide. When he does not, he has his kingdom taken away from him.
Evil has been done in the name of nearly every religion I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure it will be done in the future. That is a tragedy of immense proportions. But we hurt the cause of Freedom if we use the broadest of brushes and try to simply something as complex as the faith of 1.6 BILLION people living in hundreds of countries around the world.
Erik:
You should listen to the debate itself and you would hear the High Level at which it was carried out. You can download it on Bob’s website.
“Apologist” is a standard term used by many religious experts to refer to themselves. Bob Siegel’s radio show intro gives the title to Siegel himself. It is not a pejorative term in that field.
The over 2.5 BILLION Christians in the world are deserving of advocacy as are other faiths.
And it is disappointing to see someone of your caliber Broad-Brush religious believers with the tired all-religions-are evil canard.
It is no coincidence that Democracy primarily flourishes in the world where Christianity, Judaism and the Hindu faith predominate. There are encouraging signs of Islamic human rights progress as well in Indonesia, Albania, Bulgaria and Iraq, among others.
Officialy ATHEIST nations like mainland China, Cuba, Vietnam and the old Soviet Union were/are the worst violators of Human Rights in world history.
Repeat…these trends are NOT a coincidence. An active, involved and religous citizenry in the United States is a bulwark of Democracy. You have nothing reasonable to fear from Us.
Author
You obviously didn’t listen to the debate, because if you had, I would then ask how you could possibly have made such a statement. Your comments demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about Islam. This is fine. Nobody studies every religion. But if you have not studied, you may want to consider admitting as much and delaying your contempt for my opinion, pending updated information, rather than arguing in a vacuum. In fact, you aren’t even fairly representing the brief things I said on Rostra, as I acknowledged that there are peaceful Muslims and it seemed to roll right over your emotional (rather than objective) reaction to my words. But where as peaceful Muslims exist, so does the Koran. I have read the Koran and what it says is what it says, whether it makes somebody like yourself think I believe in big tent political practicality or not. Conservatives stand for freedom of speech too.
Regarding the Old Testament, I have written a whole chapter in my book and posted an article on my website about violence in the O.T. Should you choose to actually read this and then truly respond to my points rather than assuming you already know them, perhaps the two of us can have a real discussion. Let me put it in another way: Maybe you should draw a deep breath next time before opening your mouth with self righteous lectures.
FYI. If you would like to continue this discussion over the air, I am happy to debate you too. You seem to have it all figured out and I’m sure that my audience, dazzled by your self ascribed moral and intellectual superiority, will agree with you that I need to “bone up on my biblical scholarship.” What do you say?
Well no – at 58 minutes I am not going to listen to your pod-cast.
But lets go through your post and comments in detail.
Jim, I wrote “Evil has been done in the name of nearly every religion I can think of off the top of my head. ” Would you disagree? That is not “Broad-Brush religious believers” but rather to point out that modern day jihadists are not somehow unique. They are, sadly, another sad chapter in a long list of zealots that have killed unbelievers in the name of their faith.
Your observation of the correlation between large segments of the population holding to the Christian faith and democracy is something that others have noted. It is, however, something beside the point of how we think about Islam and its inherent “violent” nature
An “actively religious” citizenry can be a bulwark against totalitariansim. It also can give us the anti-Catholic league, the Klan and the tar and feathering of Mormons in Ohio in 1833. Locke would urge TOLERANCE since we are incapable as men to divining g*d’s true purpose. I would agree.
To Bob’s Point (I think there is only one), he doesn’t like me quoting Samuel. But in my mind what Bob does in his post and response (http://bobsiegel.net/god_commandwipeout.shtml) is a double standard. On the blog he contextualizes the Old Testament – offering up a historical and linguistic defense to try to get beyond the current translation to a more original text . And yet he does NOT, it seems, apply the same method to making sense of what the Koran and Mohamed mean when they call for jihad.
Heck, Bob and I would probably agree that in context of the 7th century the Koran means what is says – go forth and conquer infidels, converting them to Islam or killing them. But I can find scores if not hundreds of medieval Christian texts that say basically the same thing. I am not sure that that means for today except that the 7th century made Hobbes’ 1600s a picnic
What you failed to do, however, is acknowledge that Islam is, because it is SO decentralized, exceeding diverse. For every zealot imam one can find a liberal one. Sometimes I think the only thing they have in common is the Koran and the 5 pillars. And thus my main point remains – painting the broadest of brush strokes on a religion with more than a billion followers and diversity of thought is a vast oversimplification and one which alienates people from conservative causes.
Author
To answer the following comment from Eric:
“On the blog he contextualizes the Old Testament – offering up a historical and linguistic defense to try to get beyond the current translation to a more original text . And yet he does NOT, it seems, apply the same method to making sense of what the Koran and Mohamed mean when they call for jihad. ”
Yes I do use the same method. That is just exactly what I do. Both the Bible and the Koran need to be judged according to context and honest rules of literary criticism. One such rule is as follows: What the writer intended to say is what the text actually means. We know what Mohammad intended to say because we have his life to look at. He both commanded and led Jihads. They were for the purpose of conquering unbelievers and ruling the world with Islam.
As for your other comments about Islam, again you have chosen to insinuate that I “paint with a broad brush” while fully admitting that you did not even listen to the debate. This is amazing. Although I write articles for the Rostra, this was not an article that you were reacting to. It was an invitation to listen to a debate. If you don’t have the time or desire to listen, that is fine, but you are talking like a movie critic who writes his review without seeing the movie. Either that, or you are telling me in a patronizing way that the debate was simply inappropriate and you don’t really care what points were made. Either way, you do little to advance meaningful conversation. I have come to expect that from liberals. From a self described conservative, it is sad.
My offer to debate you on the air still stands.
Bob, now you are cheating. (“Both the Bible and the Koran need to be judged according to context and honest rules of literary criticism. One such rule is as follows: “) You provide about 4000 words on an interpretation of Deut. that while I disagree with, relies NOT so much on working backwards from the Latin, Greek and Hebrew sources but looking at historical context. Fair game then to do the same with Islam, putting Mohhammed in the context of 7th century Arabia.
It was YOUR headline choice Bob “Is Islam A Violent Religion?” You still haven’t addressed the point of whether you think that is a alienating way of engaging 1.4 billion people on the planet and 4 million (and growing) CITIZENS of the united states. But of course you also call Mormonism a cult and deny that -practicing Muslims can be anything other than radical jhidists (http://bobsiegel.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/18/are_there_peaceful_muslims_in_the_world.thtml)
No I won’t debate with you (and am done here) because I believe in a conservatism of TOLERANCE that takes extremely seriously the idea that people should be free to live their own lives as they chose up until the point that their actions infringe upon MY liberty. It is pretty clear you don’t.
Erik
Bob Siegel has thrown down the gauntlet. Accept his challenge to debate. “You have nothing to fear except fear itself”.
If Erik hasn’t listened to the podcost, then his comments here are largely irrelevant. This post was, after all, an invitation to listen to the debate. Erik seems to be reacting to the use of the term Muslim “apologist” as if that is a negative. Yet, Siegel calls himself a Christian apologist, so why would he consider the word a negative? Erik also doesn’t like the fact the headline uses the phrase,”Is Islam A Violent Religion?” But, that was the content of the debate and the Muslim gentlemen wasn’t offended by debating that very question. Erik’s reaction seems to be an overreaction, especially given he won’t accept even the offer of listening to that making him incensed.
Well I listened to the pod cast. Where even to begin….
Without boring rostarians, one of the most offensive sections is where Bob finds a section in the Koran which says that Muslims may lie in times of war. BTW – Bob expounds upon that point here…
http://bobsiegel.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/18/are_there_peaceful_muslims_in_the_world.thtml
He then notes that since (his words) “Muslims are at War” everything that doesn’t acknowledge a call to violent jihad must be a lie. Of course we could reverse that logic – suggesting that the call to violent jihad must be a lie designed to scare the disbelievers and isn’t true.
I also find it offensive that Bob won’t put the Koran into historical context but feels free to excuse similar calls to violence in the Old Testament either by rooting them in a sorta pseudo-history (his blog, not the pod-cast) or by saying that the Old Testament trumped them so they don’t really “count” after the Sermon on the Mount. I think it is a fundamentally different way we approach Scripture.
Finally, Bob makes a final point which essentially says that since the Koran says this then Muslims who are not outwardly committed to violent jihad are either liers or not really Muslims (his term is nominal muslims) and thus their views should be discounted.
If you are not going to start from a perspective of taking the words of Muslim “apologists” at least initially as sincere and honest and won’t apply the same rules on both sides it really isn’t worth the brain cells to debate….and it definitely doesn’t address the truth that it is offensive to a segment of the population that is now 4 million AMERICAN citizens.
Bob essentially is saying that either they are liars, violent radicals or don’t really BELIEVE in their region and are either dupes or whatever the equivalent is of twice a year Christians.
I wonder who will be the last person in the tent to switch off the lights?
I agree with the comments that evil has been done in the name of virtually every religion in the world. The problem, however, lies not with the religion, but with some of the people practicing it.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all call for righteousness and justice and taking care of the poor. So what’s wrong with that? It’s the lunatic fringe of those religions, however, that give the rest of us a bad name.
I’d also like to respond to Erik’s comment…”Samuel Book 1 – in which G*d commands to “UTTERLY destroy all (the Amalekites) that they have, and do not spare them,” explicitly calling to Samuel to commit genocide.
It was Saul to whom G-d was speaking. The only thing Samuel ever killed was an occasional burnt offering to the Lord.
David – thank you for the correction. My mistake.
Erik: Your religion of peace Islam, just killed an American teacher Joel Shrum for the crime of being Christian. Wake up Erik, in 2012, Muslims, not Christians, are killing people for being a different religion. Islam is a religion of violence.
Author
What a surprise that Eric didn’t like the debate inasmuch as he wrote two critical comments about it before even listening. And so, how open his mind was when he finally did listen is anyone’s guess. Some of the things he writes above misrepresent what I said and/or say it in a tone or context much different than mine but I will not belabor the point as anyone is free to listen and decide for themselves.
I did notice that Eric, (after refusing to back his words up by coming on the show and debating me himself) makes his main argument by talking about how offensive my words are. Of course, the real issue for a thinking, rational person is not the question of what sounds offensive but rather, the question of what is actually true. That inquiry seems to be of no importance to Eric. His patronizing rebuke is based upon feelings rather than facts. And he seems unconcerned that my opponent said untrue things about Israel’s history and called all who believe Israel has a historical claim to the land “terrorists worse than Osama Bin Laden.” That comment doesn’t concern Eric. But when I point out what the Koran teaches and give examples of how it is being applied in country after country all over the world, THIS DOES CONCERN ERIC. Let’s not be offended by evil. Let’s instead be offended by people who warn us about evil. Sweet! That is all I have to say to Eric unless he has the guts to come on my program and have a dialogue in real time instead of posturing over the internet.