08-21-2016, 03:59 PM
|
#485
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Also, Corsi PM:d me this, and agreed that I could share it.
Quote:
Nik ... is thinking of the Intelligence Squared debate which took place a couple of years earlier. You posted the Richmond forum debate. Nawaz clarified his view in his book with Harris, Islam and the Future of Tolerance, published last October:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maajid Nawaz
My honest view is that Islam is not a religion of war or of peace – it’s a religion. Its sacred scripture, like those of other religions, contains passages that many people would consider extremely problematic. Likewise all scriptures contain passages that are innocuous. Religion doesn’t inherently speak for itself; no scripture, no book, no piece of writing has its own voice. I subscribe to this view whether I’m interpreting Shakespeare or interpreting religious scripture.
So I wasn’t being dishonest in saying that Islam is a religion of peace. I’ve subsequently had an opportunity to clarify at the Richmond Forum, where Ayaan and I discussed this again. Scripture exists; human beings interpret it. At Intelligence Squared, being under the unnatural constraints of a debate motion, I asserted that Islam is a religion of peace simply because the vast majority of Muslims today do not subscribe to it being a religion of war. If it holds that Islam is only what its adherents interpret it to be, then it is currently a religion of peace.
Part of our challenge is to galvanize and organize this silent majority against jihadism so that it can start challenging the narrative of violence that has been popularized by the organized minority currently dominating the discourse. This is what I was really trying to argue in the Intelligence Squared debate, but the motion forced me to take a side: war or peace. I chose peace.
|
|
|
|
|