Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan Debate: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

six days after the September 11th terrorist attacks it was President Bush who went to the Islamic center of Washington DC and proclaimed that Islam is a religion of peace at the time the remark was barely a cause for controversy instead it was greeted by most as a call to civility a note of sanity a warning to fanatics who might consider taking revenge on some innocent Muslim women shopping for groceries in a headscarf but now nine years later President Bush is widely accused in retrospect of having succumbed to a momentary case of political correctness many people now believe that his Islam is peace remark was born either of ignorance or of expediency it did not even take another successful act of terrorism to set off the season we just lived through the endless summer of holy war the instigation was a proposal to build the mosque at Ground Zero or if you prefer the mosque of the old Burlington Coat Factory in the financial district what ensued was nothing less than a referendum on Islam my work means that I travel around the United States asking total strangers a lot of nosy questions about religion I found that this question is Islam a religion of peace more than any other is now the one on people's minds but let's acknowledge that too many the question before us tonight is either absurd or offensive to one camp the question is absurd because the answer is patently obvious just look at the headlines they say if 9/11 is not convincing enough what about the suicide bombers in Iraq Afghanistan Israel Spain Pakistan for God's sake even a tourist retreat like Bali they say what about Major Nidal Hasan a psychiatrist in the US Army who shot his own colleagues at point-blank after he spent years studying and reflecting on his mother faith was he under the influence of psychosis or of Islam they ask why do honor killings seem to be a Muslim phenomenon how could a religion of peace permit a father to order the death of his own daughter this camp says not only is his LOM not a religion of peace it is intrinsically a religion of violence the question is absurd the case is closed yet there are others who consider the Islam and peace question not so much absurdly obvious as utterly offensive this camp asks how can you condemn an entire faith a religion followed by nearly 2 billion people because of the atrocities committed by its fringe extremists they ask why blame the faith when the terrorists are clearly driven more by political ideology than by theology they ask why do we not apply the same judgment reserved for Islam to other religions widen the ethnic cleansing of bosnia-herzegovina prompt widespread rumination on whether Serbian Orthodox Christianity is a religion of peace when Roman Catholic priests and bishops were complicit in the genocide in Rwanda the world did not blame Roman Catholicism but the blame fell God is not great but for most the except for your wide readership that the blame fell on a few rogue clerics why do we make such fine distinctions when it comes to religions other religions but not with Islam this camp asks isn't the Old Testament laced with calls to violence as explicit as those in the Quran why do we explain away the warlike verses in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as a product of their time and culture when we do not excuse the sword verses in the Quran whether you think the question before us tonight is absurd or offensive no matter which camp you're in or neither or whether you think it's appropriate I'm hoping that what we accomplish tonight is to cause every one of you at least one disconcerning moment in which the preconception you arrived with is shattered so our format tonight will allow mr. Hitchens and mr. Ramadan each 10-minute opening statements followed by a brief rebuttal and we'll have a longer period for discussion and then open it up for questions I hope you'll have some good ones I have no tolerance for any interruptions though I don't expect that but if we do we have ways to handle them and also a reminder to turn off your cellphone's so we're not serenaded unnecessarily so we agreed very continually before we began that mr. Hitchens would begin hmm thank you Salam alaikum Shalom welcome back to United States Thank You Laurie for your introduction thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for coming I have to be brief so I'll be terse like a number of people who are students of religion I've spent a lot of time lately as you should if you have the opportunity I recommend it very highly with Professor Durman McCullough's history of Christianity marvelous work of scholarship and literature written by a mainstream believer extraordinarily broad and deep in which he ponders one very important question the only one I've got time for now what happened to the word Christendom remember they used to be such a term it used to extend across the world and the hope is that it would extend even further than it was uh neurotically used to mean those areas of human civilization and areas yet to be civilized of course where the word of Jesus Christ reigned or would reign and it's all gone the word is never used except historically or sarcastically now and Michalek doesn't say it ended because of the Crusades that he could didn't Crusades didn't kill it not because of slavery mandated by Christianity that in killing either northern mass murder of colonial subjects in the yet-to-be Christianized world that wasn't sufficient he didn't really end he said til 1914 when all the Christian empires of the world austria-hungary Germany France Britain France is a slight exception to this Polonius like one and Russia all of them commanded by Christian Emperor's and calling upon their subjects as Christians went to war with each other and very nearly destroyed the whole human civilization and certainly reduced it to a point where we can't guess where we might be if it hadn't been for this extraordinary I break of barbarism and algebra system and of Stalinism of which it was the seedbed as well I mentioned this partly because I want to maintain that there's no such thing as a religion of peace by definition and second to point out in hand that it's best historian has to admit something that if I was a Christian would make me humiliated but because there was another Empire involved in that war the Ottoman Empire which also came to an end its other name was the Caliphate the Muslim Caliphate he'd went to war on the side of German and Austrian imperialism and Hungarian imperialism and it lost not just the war having proclaimed a worldwide jihad against Christianity except for German and Austrian and Hungarian Christianity which were its allies and he didn't just lose the war but by 1924 had been dissolved by the Turkish leadership Parature had lost the caliphate and that's the only one that still has supporters the other Christian and religious empires have all gone but the Caliphate still has pads not just in the Muslim world sometimes referred to by Muslims as the DAR al-islam the house of Islam but also in what some Muslims called the dar al-harb the house of war the part of the world that isn't yet Muslim the little Caliphate clubs in London now in Berlin and elsewhere quite important ones and what I want to know is why that is and what we should think about it believers in this fantasy have Lauri's spared me the need to say much of this have committed extraordinary atrocities in Istanbul in Madrid in India in the Philippines in Indonesia and of course in our own fair city and the pretext for it very they can be excuse for the mass murder can be that Australia has helped East Timor become independent from Indonesia they can be the Newsweek as printed a full story about the desecration of a supposedly holy book you never know what it's going to be next but everyone knows to be careful about it and everyone understands that the threat of violence that backs it is believable and that's my opening position now you will say I can hear it already being said you may be saying it already to yourselves because the defense mechanisms kick in and in any case Laurie already said it for you and I hope professor Ramadan won't feel the need to say it again but if he does fair enough you may say ah that's not the real Islam those aren't real Muslims now isn't that a fascinating objection does is there anyone in this room I exempt Professor Ramadan because it's his turn to speak next is anyone in this room who would care to arbitrate that question who is to say where is the authority that defines who is a true son of the Prophet or true interpreter of his work part of the problem to begin with and it's part of the problem because it is a religion is that it's perfectly true to say we don't know who the true Muslims are how right that is who do who does speak for it there's only the second problem with defining Islam as peaceful only the second problem the defining it is peaceful has to do with the fact that it's highly fissile and highly schismatic that there is a civil war going on within it the religion of peace as we speak at least one civil war between the votaries of this religion of peace is already taking place and some of it is exported outside that world into ours very salient fact the first reason though is this Islam makes very large claims for itself very large claims indeed it claims to be the last and final religion the last and final revelation when you see bumper stickers everyone says you can't reduce major things to a bumper sticker it's not my idea to have bumper stickers saying Islam is the solution it's a well-known slogan actually if parties associated with the Muslim they say Islam is the solution for everything it takes care of all your life and the one to come sexuality political economy banking diet relations with other religions everything it's a total solution what is creepy about the word total hope I don't have to tell an audience like this it's the first five letters of the word term sanitarian it's absolute it's absolute it's all-inclusive it's it's unanswerable and oddly for religion that makes such large claims notice another thing about Islam it doesn't particularly like having these claims questioned or scrutinized in other words this as there just is there is with all religions an inverse relationship between the claims they make and the evidence they can produce for them you must have noticed that with Islam a younger religion and perhaps therefore more in its first flush there's an extraordinarily strong willingness to say that any challenge to its absolute is claims is by definition profane and profanity and blasphemy can be the antecedent to very severe punishment and often are for Muslims and for non-muslims and this is not a road of peace in my submission that's my first point completed the claim to govern everything from hygiene to sex and the afterlife which contains detailed prescriptions for the good and bad versions of itself against strikes me as somewhat so charged herion and they're both based upon two very very questionable and not very peaceful concepts one is the idea of a perfect human being the Prophet Muhammad and the other is the idea of a perfect book Quran the recitation now the category perfect human primary door mammal and the category flawless book that could possibly not use any kind of change revision or editing our categories that do not exist there are no members of these categories therefore any challenge to this faith is bound to lead to heresy and to schism and does and just as all forms of absolutism and to tout Arianism leader worship and revealed truth unalterable text always do because they can break perhaps but they cannot bend and thus the latent potential of violence with between them among them as well as within them is very great and at any change at any moment someone is in danger of being accused of being an apostate or an unbeliever this week the Coptic Pope of Egypt Pope Shenouda who represents 10 million Egyptians was hustled onto Egyptian TV he's not asked honorable that often I'd only use even asked on this time I mean he was told he'd better come on why is the leader of Egyptians huge it's huge Christian minority suddenly compelled to make a TV appearance because one of his bishops had said in a interview that he thought that some of the verses of the Quran showed signs of having been added later on and to be later accretion and Pope Shenouda was asked forced under the television to say it's not that didn't happen it's it couldn't have happened you shouldn't even be discussed so that it is has to be claimed even by non-muslim subjects of a Muslim states that there is after all because no Christian claims this about the Bible anymore no Jew claims it about the Pentateuch after all yes there is just one book that's completely word and letter perfect from the first time it was not even written down but recited now demands that you believe the impossible do not lead to peaceful outcomes nor do they lead to peaceful or tolerant regimes and I'm not going to ask you which Muslim country you would like to live in I don't know whether professor Ramallah will tell us which one he would pick if he had to because I don't have to ask you a question I that was already in your mind can you wind up now yes I can dilute I can yes and we'll shall shall in fat sexual repression doesn't lead to peace the idea that women are inferior to men is a profound cause of unease let's say the least of it all religions make some form of this claim Islam seems to make it less apologetically than most claims that the world will come to an end in apocalyptic form which will lead to the victory of one religion or another not peaceful either it's possible perhaps I haven't exhausted all my mass that the end is teaching of battle stories to children only and the stories of lethal feuds from seventh century Arabia don't lead to peace or the forcing of children to memorize and retell such stories by rote doesn't need to peace either yeah it's arguable the peace isn't attainable at all it may be argument some forms that sometimes in places that religion is deemed desirable but it will not come by the fanatical adoption of a man-made text and a man-made supreme leader nothing but war and tyranny has ever come from the adoption of formula like these the only way to moral and intellectual satisfaction even temporary that's only temporary but of any kind at all is comes to those who are willing to take the great risk of thinking for themselves at all hazards and trying to share the benefits of that tolerance and that open-mindedness with others and with that for now I rest my case thank you very much thank you first thank you for for this invitation here this evening and I really also want to thank once again Oxford University Press organizing my visit here in the States and I won't forget ACLU and others who helped me to struggle for my rights of for being here in the States and being able to to speak to listen and to contribute to the to the American debate of the Western debate and I know that among us Jameel Jaffer is here so I want to thank you again for this support let me go straight to some of the points and and I'm not going to respond straightaway to some of the claims on all the claims but during my talk as it is the introductory speech let me highlight some of the points when I got the question of course as a Muslim and as a believer but as someone who is coming from within the realm of religions it was quite clear that to put it that way was not the right question to ask is Islam a religion of peace or is Christianity or is Judaism or is Buddhism religion or spirituality of peace doesn't mean anything for me it's not the right question it's not the accurate question not because I think that there is a good Islam and the right Islam and there are people who are acting in a no Muslim was not representing what Islam is this is not my point I never said that by the way but the point for me is really to to to try to deal with a phenomenon with religion from within and to try to understand the dynamics and to understand the trends and to understand the diversity so just two essential eyes one religion by saying it's all about war it's all about peace and even you know said by george w bush doesn't mean anything for me so this is one one point which is important but religions and all the religions and Islam among all the other religions are dealing with human beings and if you deal with human beings you deal with violence and you deal with peace you did with violence because human beings by definition have to do with violence they have to deal with Agri civet E where's wars and to expect from religion not to tackle the issue is just to dream of something which is not going to happen all the spirituality go for Buddhist I'll go for the bhagavad-gita you deal with violence so this is it now what is the answer coming from religions and from trance when it comes to violence and to peace this is the right question for me do we have something which is coming and helping us to go towards peace this is for me the right question so now once again when I have people speaking from outside and especially the case these days when it comes to Islam is we speak about Islam and we speak about you know something which is a religion that is perceived through one window or through one interpretation and we very often take what is visible to the media but Islam is as complex as Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism and Hindus it's a diversity of interpretations yes you're right the Quran is for the Muslims the very word of God but many interpretations and many ways of dealing with the books the problem is that the book the problem is the reader is the way now now we have only 10 minutes so this is why when for example you take a text and you can do this with the Bible with the Torah the the the Gospels it's always the same tell me the way you read I will know what is in your mind but not for sure what is in the text and this is something which is the starting point of a serious discussion in theology because I don't like all these intellectuals and philosophers and even journalists they are very keen on on understanding the complexity of philosophies and the simplicity of religions that's not right and the one to blame sometimes are the religious people themselves because the way to present their religion is something which is all of dream and hopes and not dealing with the reality which is a complex reality and this is where I think we have to come to a better understanding so very often when I deal with such topics I just have to start with the very beginning we want to deal with the religion let us speak about religious issues and religious understanding not to avoid the starting - just to come to news papers and headlines it's not going to help us to understand religion just to go for what is happening in the world let us also understand the fundamentals and then come to some of the translation the historical experiences because as much as you can speak about September 11 you can speak about the 16th century under the Empire the Ottoman in power which was a great civilization with the diversity Christians and Jews and and even non-believers working and living together we are always speaking about Indonesia but we can prove everything with history if you don't get a sense of what are the principles we are talking about so for example coming from a religious viewpoint I wouldn't see Islam is the religion of peace I say Islam is the region for human beings it deals with peace and it deals with violence and it helps the people to go from violence towards peace it's a way towards peace but it's not a peaceful reality because we are not peaceful beings we are all in tension just to get that inner peace in us and this is starting-point of the Islamic philosophy of human being is really to start with your own self look at your heart and tell me if you are at peace or you were at peace peace is a process through which you have it's a process that you get at the end of a self education educate yourself to get this inner peace this is coming from the universal message of all the religions you get this in Buddhist before even speaking or not even speaking about one God but you get it in today's we get it in in Christianity educate yourself to get that peace so you have to deal with your inner Wars and tensions so this is the way we have to deal with the issue about peace and the starting point is spirituality why because at the end of the day is really something which is important and this is the difference that you can find between Islam and the Greek tradition if you come back to Socrates Socrates was saying your body in itself is bad and this is why you have the soul helping you to mud to educate your body and to master your body in Islam there is nothing like that your body is not bad is not good and your soul is not bad is not good it depends on what you are going to make out of it it's your responsibility because you are free your dignity's in your freedom and you have to use your freedom to make it back to make it good take the good decision for your body that's good make the bad decision that's bad so it's all a question of educating yourself with your own body and it's exactly the same when it comes to the understanding of the world so this way towards peace it's based on education it's based on a spiritual way of dealing with yourself and you know what is the meaning of that the very essence of what I am trying to translate now is jihad so this is something which is coming from the classical tradition and once again the classical tradition is helping us understand jihad is resist the bad to promote the good and the bad is in yourself first and then you will try to get the good and to get the good is this inner peace so jihad is not the way towards war is the way towards peace because you have as human being in principally to deal with your inner Wars and inner tensions it's exactly the same in the in the world that what we have to do you will find something which is the will of God what is the will of God diversity he made you tribes and nations in order for you to know each other but you know the risk of diversity it could be lots of knowledge and protection wars so you have to educate yourself to live with other and with this diversity to know each other so you can look at Islam saying you know what Islam claims it's the last and final religion it's not enough to end with this sentence the most important thing is what Islam is saying about the other religions that you have to remove them from the earth no he made you tribes and nations in order for you to know each other so respect the Christians respect the Jews respect the people who were before you so it's so cold towards respect that you find also in the texts so yes you will have Muslims they will take one dimension and interpret this as as it is the final religion we are not going to deal with all the others but you cannot deny the fact that through history Muslims in many situations in many historical situation we're dealing with this diversity and we learn from the Middle Ages and we learn from the Ottoman Empire that Muslims are able to deal with diversity and take from the Judy the Jewish tradition my monedas was freaking Arabic better than me he was a Jew and he was an intellectual and he was a theologian and he was dealing with respectful people so all these Muslims were wrong Muslims because they don't they don't understand that the final religion should not listen to the first monetary tradition that's not true you cannot reduce this in such a way it's too simplistic to represent what a religion is and what a history and a historical experience is so this is for me something which has to do with the diversity that we have that it's rooted in the Islamic tradition as well in the classical tradition that we find it so when you deal with diversity know that you know you need to promote and it's out of your personal education mutual knowledge to get respect but you also have to deal sometimes with oppressors and people who are going to try to take over and you have to resist and this resistance in order to reform the world for the better is the very meaning of jihad now once again I will never deny the fact that some Muslims some theologians in history and now are using some of the verses you know which is for me unacceptable and you know I go even further than that just after September 11 when I was invited by time I came here and I was asked about this I said you know what it's not only none it's not only not good and not Islamic it's anti Islamic what they are doing it's against my religion it's against the principles so I'm not saying this is the good religion and this is bad I acknowledged the fact that they are interpreting the text in a way but what I am saying from where I am from within the tradition is this is anti Islamic this is not the right way to deal with the text so you can introduce this into something which is oh the only right Muslims are the Muslims who are acting the way I believe Islam is meaning bad I think it's not fair it's not a discussion that we can have so let me come to my conclusion here at the end of the day if you go through the text and you understand the philosophy of this way towards peace dealing with your own Wars and inner tensions and the tensions within the society you will find interpretations within Islam that are promoting something which has to do with peace without avoiding violence because we all have to deal with our violence this is something which is important and in history you will find the examples for this and for that so don't rely on history with history you prove whatever you want but at the end of the day this is exactly the case for all the philosophies all the people who are promoting human rights we all have to do something which is out of humility to check our people because with the best means you can promote the bad or the worst attitude in the name of human rights we want to kill people in the name of human rights we can promote and support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan where so many innocent people have been killed and I said it from the beginning never forget that the blood of a variety of Iraqi innocent man or woman is as valuable as the blood of an American innocent man and woman no discussion about this so the best ideology in the name of human rights in the name of democracy could be used by people to promote the worst so let us be humble instead of criticizing one religion and one ideology to know that in our universe of reference you will find people using our texts our values sometimes vote a good and sometimes for the bad sometimes for peace and sometimes for war sometimes for dignity and sometimes for money sometimes for protecting freedom and sometimes for geostrategic interests it's not try to essentialize by saying or all the wars on human rights for human rights or all these philosophies are right or wrong or promoting a philosophy or a religion of of violence I think that this kind of conclusion are very dangerous because they don't give us the opportunity to find in any single religion in any single philosophy people of goodwill these are the people who can talk to each other understand each other and make it possible to live in diversity and in mutual respect thank well I also don't think that the motion if that's what it is chosen for this evening is a particularly good one but I knew about it as long as professor Ramadan didn't I did at least agree to speak to it in spite of that reservation and I make this not just as a point of self-pity but because for example someone in this great city who's become used to making nice these days imam ralph who describes himself as both founder and visionary of whatever the downtown establishment is now to be called wrote an article and pretty sure it was on the eve of Yom Kippur for the New York Times in which he said when you think about it this is the one of the most hand-washing statements I've yet heard him make in the make nice department when you think about it our word Islam is almost exact translation of your word Shalom I didn't say it I've never heard anyone else said it isn't true among other things Islam may have some relationship to the word Salaam which can have some relationship to the word prostration or religious observance it may but we know what Islam means is intended to mean and does mean is surrender to God acceptance of God surrender sometimes translated as submission but in any case the resignation to the divine will again not in my opinion a prescription for peace but that isn't my only objection to it I don't think that objection or fatalism or the prostration before a divine or let alone before holy men who are interpreting the book is a recipe for good health of any kind mental or physical since we're talking about the Greek concept of the of the body and of the Spirit and of virtue just get that out of the way now you're right I was surprised to find myself saying professor when you say that the problem is not the book but the reader in the case of the Koran that is certainly true of me it's true probably of every book I've ever read that there are difficulties I have with it or capacities I don't have with which to approach here to understand it but if I reading the Quran I certainly say well I I can't tell whether this book is the Word of God or not I can only doubt that there is such thing but I can hope that this was a bad day for God kansai and I can hope to live in a country where I can say that and get applause ah yes and and even and even mirth and don't think that isn't the precious thing and don't think it's being compromised I'm coming to that I don't like the idea of a paradise reward for martyrs don't like it it's not me somehow don't like the account gently I don't like the early accounts of village squabbles with the local Jews who've taken a look at the new claiming to be the Messiah and decided about him what they decided about the previous claimant he's no good not up to snuff do you think the Jews are ever going to be forgiven for that by the way for rejecting 2 in a row I don't think so and I don't see why they should hope for I don't see why they should hope for forgiveness either and still I'm allowed to stand here and say this and there are many parts of Europe I couldn't do that any more or I'd have to be very careful in who I'd invited for the audience I couldn't do it easily on the air couldn't do it easily in print couldn't do it easily in public couldn't do it on certain campuses couldn't do it with certain publishing houses now all of this has been done to us by the wrong Muslims well let's get together then isolate who these wrong Muslims are who've imposed a culture of violence back to censorship upon us and let's get rid of them and have an honest discussion about the text and the reader and I think the ball is in your court professor on that just to stay with my own profession the thing I know best not one major media outlet print or broadcast has yet shown you what the Danish cartoons actually look like Yale University Press which commissioned a book on them which was to include the cartoons as how could it not eventually pan Yale University Press panicked and published the book without the cartoons over the objections of its author everybody knows what I'm talking about the President of the United States and head of the Joint Chiefs a few days ago was so pulverized with fear that they had to address personally in pleading tones of Christian not bag in Florida who might have been or might not have been about to commit a minor act of blasphemy is this the culture that Islam wants us to have in relation to it one of if you like preemptive submission pre-emptive cowering backed by the fear of force because that is not naughty culture ism that's not that's nothing like the gorgeous mosaic that's actually the absolute negation of what a multicultural system would be like and a multicultural system has to look rather askance I think on a religion whose preachers and websites openly openly make threats against people like myself against the Jewish people against the Hindus who haven't se gone even monotheists can be killed on almost any pretext against and and very and very and a very important point and I have to make it and against the wrong kind of Muslim now professor don't I'll say this is mildly as light as I can don't some you may not be aware that you were and I'm City I don't want to increase the area of unexpected offense taking that's been so hugely broadened by the sensitivities of of a religion that has the answer to everything but I'll just say I don't greatly care to be told as if I didn't know that an Iraqi life is as precious as an American wine and as someone who's visited Iraq quite a lot had the occasion to think about it a good deal wonder if you could mention anything United States has done in Iraq that is remotely as criminal as sadistic and as violent as the blowing up of the mosque of the golden dome in Samara one of the holiest sites in the Muslim world callously blown up by Sunni forces in alliance with forces who perhaps not agree with them for once on this was a sure cig Baathists probably they got the weapons in that high explosive from them that makes it worse surely intending to start and successfully in fact initiating a civil war in which countless thousands of people have been killed religious processions have been just fired upon funerals have been fired on quran's but without number of course being incinerated much more importantly children old people and civilians now where is I just wonder you'll be you'll have to meet you must be able to quote it to me where is the Sunni fat were against this conduct where is it where is the authoritative statement of moral outrage in the city world saying this is not acceptable behavior for followers of the Prophet I missed it and so apparently did the followers of the Prophet miss because they keep on doing this all the time they were doing it before United States got to Iraq and they'll be doing it after we've gone so I'm sorry I won't be talked to in that tone of voice and I want to know I repeat my question who has the authority to assume fatwas is it Sheikh Qaradawi who sometimes very much expressed respectful who on al-jazeera gives advice on all kinds of things some of them innocuous sexual matters and so forth doctrinal rulings sometimes upon the legitimacy or otherwise of suicide bombing if directed at Israelis not just Jews of I know no we draw the distinction on the other hand Hamas which does the suicide bombing doesn't draw this tension if I can't issue a fatwa against Hamas if I'm a Muslim if there's no one who will and they won't surely someone could say we don't think Hamas should have on its website and manifesto the reproduction of the protocols of the Elders of Zion a Christian fascist fabrication that is one of the warrants for the Nazi extermination is solution I mean surely that's a question for the UN anti-racism Committee on a spare day or or since that spare day never seems to come for some Muslim authority to say no brothers don't don't do that it doesn't come it doesn't happen look on the website it's still there now you you would do better I think professor if you identified yourself as a member of a very small and critical and endangered minority someone who really is against all this and will say so I will also decry the fact that the religion itself can't seem to throw it off but you seem to have that a little bit both ways now yes so then my question stems is if you want diversity as much as the professor does as much as I'm sure many people here do religious diversity cultural diversity what you need for it is this you need a secular state with a godless Constitution like this one choose to speak as you did of the Ottoman Empire as a place where there were not just Muslims but Christians and Jews is either not to know yourself or to expect others to have forgotten or not to know what it meant to be a non-muslim under the Caliphate or under any similar theocratic Muslim Authority to this day know what we need what secularism is the only guarantee of religious freedom and yours and that of every other Muslim we will defend but you won't be surprised that we have some questions for you in the meanwhile thank you okay you laughed a lot make love to people I have a problem with we are talking our people who are being killed happy good-looking our people about wars that's that's fine I have a problem with the way you are putting things here first you know when you said the first remark say okay you know what total these are the first letters of totalitarianism because Islam is a comprehensive religion by the way exactly like Judaism and Christianity I never met a rabbi a Christian telling me you are with God on Saturday and with the dead d-david on Monday or in the hottest ad but in Islam it's as if it's all together it's a very simplistic way of dealing with this land it's a comprehensive religion but there are rights of garden rights of people and you have to differentiate and it's very old come back to Alan deliver her the French philosopher telling you you know what separating authority between what is to God and what is to human being it's coming from Islam and this was taught and translated into Christianity in the Middle Ages exactly the opposite of what we think you may disagree but you at least acknowledge the fact that there are many interpretation in history then say Islam is this total mean totalitarian that Otto is our the first letter of of autocratic it's not an argument it's not serious and as I said yes it's we are talking about reading and by the way it's for all the text is the same for the Marxist you know quite well about the Marxist tradition and you know what some Marxists did with the text it means that everything that Marx wrote was bad no once again it's a serious matter here when we are talking about interpretations we I mean it I mean that yes there are people using the text in a way which is not and you have historically to acknowledge the fact that you yourself might have read some of the text not in the good way so this is the second point about now the cartoons and and and some of the things that you were referring to you know look at the Muslim majority countries and look at the Muslims and the Western Muslims and if you look at the reaction of the Muslims living in the States or living in Europe you cannot just see Islam was wander all the Muslims were reacting the same way by the way the very month of October when the whole story started I was in Copenhagen and I said to the Muslims take a critical distance and don't be involved in this you don't like it but let it be because this is freedom the point is that that we are not making because you are reducing something which is oh the cartoon was all about freedom of expression you don't speak about the instrumentalization by politicians and governments in muslim-majority countries and even in the West about the whole story because this is too complex to be put in so many authorities many scholars and then you come with the who are the Muslims who are able to speak if you read some of the things that I'm doing or writing you would say that yes I acknowledge the fact that there is a crisis of authority in Islam but please don't tell me today that you didn't hear the Muslim voices around the world criticizing and saying this is unacceptable to kill the people in the streets in in New York and the condemnation was widespread by the scholars if you don't hear of course this you know not less than 12 councils of Muslim scholars around the world from a man to Istanbul to a Paris Dublin we're condemning this it's as if they don't speak because at the end when the people are calling to kill for killing they are heard but when people are condemning what is done in the name of the religion it's as if they don't speak it doesn't make the headlines but I'm telling you that some scholars did it and said it and I was one of them and you know what is very interesting indeed the whole discussion that when the people like what I'm saying say you know what what he's saying is good but he's a known minority it's open but he's alone but when the people don't like what I say said you know why he has huge followers so depending on if you like or not what he said you have followers or not so I can tell you something that the mainstream Muslim presence in the West in many Muslim majority countries as well I acknowledge the fact that they are critical towards the use of the religion now many Muslims yes would support and I did this and by the way I was banned from the cont this country mainly for that are saying for example that the Palestinian resistance is legitimate and I said that and I repeat this here but I also said that the means use to kill innocent civilians and innocent Jews in and Israeli in Israel I cannot accept that have you heard that I said it so and I am not done I am not alone I'm not alone so once again its many interpretations listen to this and also be respectful of this diversity and the way the Muslims are doing with this so so the Fatah WA the legal opinions are coming from everywhere and when you speak about some of the issues because you know it's sensitive so you put it in a very simplistic way women violence Hamas and all this together it gives the impression oh yes yes this is right but you don't give the people all the interpretation everything which is done in every one of these fields coming from the Islamic tradition and scholars of today trying to improve the status of women trying to to condemn violence and to promote justice and peace you also have to deal with this at the end you may have a problem with religion much more than with Islam and - tell me - tell me at the end of your speech the only right solution is a secular godless Constitution in the United States of America I think it's problematic because I don't think it's a godless nation here there is a reference so no no the Constitution no only the Constitution now but I don't think that even you're the politician and even the President of the United States of America is referring to something which is a godless secular system or I don't understand all the speeches I listen to but the point is that my way of dealing with the secular or separating offer I don't have a problem with separating authorities I don't have a problem with this and it even my solution in Israel and with Palestinian I want one state where the people can live together under the same rule of law but it's as if we agree on this in France but not really in Israel because it wouldn't be Israel so it's a selective not consistent I wanted to say this everywhere in that way and then you are saying it but I would say that the people who are floating sometimes they want this for some and not for all so let me tell you something I'm critical from within I think that I'm far from being the only one and from within the Islamic tradition listen to also for example the Western Muslims who the way they were dealing with the September 11th the way they were dealing with the cartoon crisis the way they were dealing with fitna many of them were saying no don't be involved in the United States of America how the Muslims reacted to all this controversy on the mosque here in New York or in burning the Koran day let's eat were they all violent or have you heard some voices of reason and peace in this country I think if you are honest you heard these voices of peace of people referring to their religion and say we are Americans and what we want for this country is a peaceful proactive existence and coexistence I think that this is also coming from the ethics their values and you have to value this as being the future so to dream or something which is a godless future I think it's a wrong dream but to be able to deal with all this diversity and to listen to the voices instead of rejecting an entity as something which is bad per se let us look at the people who from within are trying to do good with what they are and what they believe in I think that this is the way forward for for all of us and this is the way I would I would put it for for for the future and I'm not talking about wrong Muslims I'm talking about a critical debate among Muslims and I hope that you yourself with the people who are supporting some of the views you are also critical about the way you sometimes reduce the other to an alien presence not helping us to go to a bed to get to a better understanding treaty debate sometimes I'm just lost with the way you put things because the debate is closed before it started thank we're going to try to get to the core of some of what you raised and then get to some questions we that ran long but I think it was I think it was very fruitful I want to distill something that came up here to two important things one is the question of authority in Islam a scholar once told me that he thinks the problem with Islam is that every Tom Dick and Harry can give fatwa and that there's no Pope there's no Magisterium and so in some ways what you have is leadership by whoever has you know the biggest audience now right now one of the most revered scholars is Yusuf al-qaradawi and he says he takes an opposite position from Professor Ramadan on the question of suicide attacks in Israel he has a program with 40 million listeners and he has a website and he says that suicide attacks on Israeli citizens even women and children are acceptable because all of Israel is a militarized society and all citizens are combatants so the question here is he has you know he's got this very large very large audience and since there is no arbitrating Authority there's no single Authority is not what Islam becomes whoever has the mote has the biggest audience has the sway in what what the faith is I think that if there is no I think it's it's true if we look at what is happening now in the Muslim majority countries as well as in the West that there is something that we can call an a crisis of authority in the book radical reform I'm tackling this from many viewpoints and not only from you know political discussion it's really even in our way to deal with Sciences Human Sciences ethics we have this problem you know when you don't know how to manage diversity it ends up with the and not knowing who is leading and this is the way we don't have a church so we have diversity in Islam so we have to know how to manage this and it's problematic and I would say that if you look today at what is happening even though we have this crisis if you look today at what is happening around the world you will see that we have many councils still the mainstream is not promoting you know violence and extremist views the mainstream is promoting you know what is said for example about Western Muslims are Muslims living in Muslim majority countries is about transparency no corruption democratization this is the mainstream that is coming now we have voices and you speak about Yusuf al-qaradawi and you are saying that I was a support one of supporters of of him you know I have one position in every one and everybody I'm dealing with in history in the past and as is in the present I read what is said and I try to be selective so for example on that point killing I said no I disagree on identity and when he once was very harsh with me saying no we have one identity and his Islamic I said no we have multiple identity and Swiss by nationality Egyptian by memory Muslim by religion European by culture these are my identities he didn't agree so I talked to people but I know that on this for example in Israel I disagree with him but you cannot reduce Youssef Accardo in the world today to disposition because he had many other positions on women on the society on democracy he is promoting something which is he called democracy in the Muslim majority country that you have to consider by saying okay on this we disagree and on that we need to have a critical debate you can adjust because one position we don't like one position we remove the people from the landscape now they are part of the landscape and they are heard in the Muslim majority countries so this is my position on that well I'm certainly not going to criticize Islam for not having a pope and in fact it would be your your visa avi in this discussion was horribly an error in any case in the Christianity never had only one Pope and still doesn't I mean there were several Catholic claimants to the papacy at different times just among Roman Catholics but today I mentioned one of them the Pope of the Coptic Christians based in Cairo the the Eastern Orthodox don't call their leader the Pope they call him the patriarch but the Christian world is full of Pope types usually anathematizing one another the Pope is just the word that innocent American is used for the man who claims to be the leader of the Roman Catholic so I don't think it's possible in fact have a moral authority within religion because I think the two things that's so sharply divorced but this doesn't this doesn't lead to just chaos because and it's it doesn't lead to the dictatorship of minorities or extremists in there give you two examples quickly in the case of the moral blackmail of Denmark that was backed up by a physical threat to destroy its economy and and burn out its embassies across the world well coordinated attack of sabotage against the small European democracy the organizing group was a thing call the OIC the organisation of the Islamic Conference groups all the Muslim countries in the worlds of increasingly powerful Lobby the United Nations hopes to pass an international resolution forbidding all criticism of religion all forms of blasphemy and profanity every ambassador of those countries in Copenhagen went to mr. Rasmussen the prime minister of Denmark and told him under the threat of violence he should change his law serves to allow us to allow him to determine what went into the Danish newspapers and when he said he couldn't do that things got a lot worse that's the ambassador of Egypt and the ambassador of Turkey and the ambassador of Belgium pourtant countries in case of Egypt containing an enormous Christian populace coming to you as if this book for a religion I'll disclaimers true or it is not itself evidently not true but it is certainly made don't let's be in any doubt about it and don't have let's have any doubt that it means to extend its influence over the people who are sitting in this hall second very quick the fatwa gates Salman Rushdie in other words the offer of money to suborn murder for the crime of writing the work of fiction in his own name by the spiritual leader of sheer Islam that's what the fat work meant then means now was after the murder of many people associated or not with the publication the book repudiated ostensibly by the Iranian government after long pressure and lobbying at the United Nations about ten years ago I think that was but I've been since then for the pleasure of going to Friday prayers of Tehran University twice to hear the sermon and on both occasions there were banners and slogans saying that the Imams holy sentence against someone Russia will never die hasn't died with the Imam for many's death war will always be carried up not I think a very good use of the premises of the University I can't speak for whether it's a good occasion for Friday prayers or not well it brings me to a second point see there's something shady involved here some people say that Islam and Islamists give themselves permission to lie to non-believers it sounds like the sort of vulgar paranoid thing that an islamaphobe would go around saying doesn't it with very easy to disprove except that it hasn't been as that example will just illustrate and these are not minor threats these are threats to the very core of what we believe is the essential thing for society which is the ability to ask questions to read the books we choose to pursue unfettered investigations and these are flatly negated by the by the claims of the religion that says it is the answer to everything Kenny can I respond to this because really I thought that reverse no that's a Kia question no no no the talia question is no the point is on on the cotton issue the way you are translating things is problematic let me just come to some of the facts here very quickly the first thing is that it happened in in October that the cotton were published between October till January nothing happened and I met the Muslim organizations in Denmark and I told them and many were of the opinion don't react the ambassador's of Muslim majority countries and Arab countries mainly asked the prime minister to meet with them he refused and my position that he made me he made a mistake here because he should have met them telling them I had no say in this it has to do with freedom of media this is not of my business he didn't do this they took it as humiliation they went back they bought the tickets no no Matt look easily no no no no no let me finish because we will come to the point here they went back and they bought the ticket of a group of Muslims among the Muslim leaders in Denmark to go to Muslim majority countries to just present what was done tell me Egypt is ruled by Islam is it Islam which is used there Mubarak is a secular president isn't it Syria is a Muslim leader or is a secular state all the main societies where the government used this because you know what happened is it's easier to use the people to tell them against the West you can demonstrate but not against the government which is an autocratic government so it's not religion is political instrumentalization of popular emotions against the West just to make it a religious issue you cannot just avoid talking about political instrumentalization of countries where there is no democracy and this country are not Islamist countries they are secular autocratic countries your third point I can't possibly disagree with you of course is a great G of opportunism and derma Gogi and I'm certain hypocrisy as well and in fact I have I will I will say that I've heard you and seen you saying that before and I agree I don't think I would classify a country that hauls the Christian leader of its minority onto the TV to say no it's not possible it could be have been any exactly the secularization no to give you a truth instrument I would not nor would I describe the Alawite regime it's an Alawite sectarian regime not a secular one that is funded by Tehran and is the funder of the murder gang Hezbollah as secular either no don't insult me not that it really hurts me that much they feel humiliated or anything all right whereas whereas apparently takes was apparently the leader of a proud country like Egypt when a demand to interfere in the internal affairs of Denmark no is not met feels I'm sorry I just to end this discussion for me on my side is the only fact that you acknowledge that there is a political instrumentalization of religion and you say I'm right that's enough for me this is exactly I knew it earlier you were trying to tell me what Karl Marx said on the subject that's your job I've had a valuable exchange I think that was worth it worth those but I know that there are people in the room and also listening in from the satellite sites who want to have some of their questions asked and a few of them are along these lines and they actually are aimed at you mr. Hitchens because of your ringing endorsement really of a secular society and and atheism a question from Vail Colorado did Jewish Christian or other religions have a greater claim on being religions of peace than Islam I mean is your beef really with Islam or is it with all religion well I'm sorry the comrade from Yale tuned in so late I mean relation up to miss the first four or five minutes of my 10 minute introduction usual devoted to a close exegesis of Professor McCullough's realization that Christianity it out genocided and out Ward and out crusaded itself finally by 1914 if you care to pick up I think you might be able to announce sign it if you will pick it up my book go is not great you will find a discussion of the warrants for slavery murder genocide and land theft that occur in the books of Moses and there are an interface herbal offense to any civilized person and the reason why so many Jews are secular at least one of the reasons so again I could go on but I really feel I don't need to a corollary question would maybe it's just a something funny would atheism be a non religion of peace I know know if there's something pretty very slightly intolerant about atheism at least I hope I should I might just say though because I really think first nammed are misunderstood me when I say the American Constitution is godless I mean I was quoting charge of a famous study of a professor Israel kramnik what I mean by that is to say the US Constitution only mentions religion and God in its preambles when it means to say the ways in which they must be kept out of the public square that's happens to be fact about our constitution and the reason why we still have it otherwise the Republic would have been destroyed long before and that it's First Amendment says that religion can be no business of the government a statement name was in society could begin to make thank but once again once again you can just refer to the Constitution and you will have Muslims just referring to text and avoiding the practical consequences and sometimes the policies that are promoted in in one country and remember that the previous president george w bush was talking when going not for the same reasons as you are not from the same source because you were supporting the war in iraq but he was doing it in the name of god so the constitution here is not preventing someone from within to speak in the name of god even if he is voting exactly the same thing that in the name of the peace that you are promoting well therefore the war in iraq I mean I can't imagine you're going to defend President Bush well from from that charge I can no one was ever summoned to vote for the war in Iraq in the name in the name of God and the president's own church as well as every other Christian Church that I know of was opposed to war for whatever little difference that might make none to me this I think this one is for Professor Ramadan why are there no progressive Muslim majority quest countries with rights for women and homosexuals etc I'm no that I think that once again if you look at the Muslim majority countries we cannot just have something which is a monolithic vision of what is happening what is happening now in Muslim majority countries is really before just looking at some dimensions of you know the rights of women within or the rights of for homosexuals for example is really to look at the situation in the whole society and the way it's progressing now we have the great majority of the Arab countries they are under dictatorships there is no freedom religious or secular society this is the same for all so if you look at this and you are expecting from within an evolution in this society forget about it look now at what is happening in Turkey turkey is changing moving towards something which is a more democratic system and you see within that our rights and discussion and critical discussion that are possible so I would say that you cannot essentialize history and say the Muslims cannot do this it's evolving and it's changing and it depends where you can have this kind of discussion and the first because they are priorities the first is really to go towards democratization and transparency in the Muslim majority countries and if you go to Indonesia even though we are far from a perfect system you have much more discussion in Indonesia today about the principles the critical reading of the text then you have in in you know Arab countries so I would say it's evolving there is no status quo and now what is also interesting is look at what the Western Muslims living in the market X system when they can express themselves when they are enjoying freedom and they are not under the political pressure what they are producing as the islamic contemporary thought it's moving we are talking about citizenship we are promoting women's rights we are promoting the rights of the people to leave and to be respected without discrimination so look at the different historical setting and you can see that it's moving and it's changing and there are new answers for new challenges coming from Muslims now you think turkey is moving in a progressive direction as it becomes more Islamist is that what you're saying that that's quite interesting the way you translate what I say it seems much more about what you think that what I said but my let me feel so there was no longer progressive attraction no what I said is that even the people who are now leading the country that they are referring to Islam and they were perceived as Islamist now we don't know how to call them are they Islamist or are they moderate Muslims or are they ex Islamists the point is that no one here can deny the fact that not only the government because we can be and we should be critical towards the government but the people around and the intellectuals in Turkey and within the even the party you have new thoughts and they are coming with something that we didn't see even in the Muslim majority countries in the our countries so speaking about the rule of law and democracy and transparency separating and and promoting what they are trying to promote and to be in tune today with the European principles and I would say this is the only thing for me which is important if for example a turkey is abiding by the European rules they should be able to integrate European Union and not what we have now because it's a Muslim majority country we don't care about what they are trying to do so don't reduce Turkey to levels there are dynamics there are people who are promoting things that are quite interesting I went there many times and I can tell you the women in Turkey the Turkish women for all the trends not only you know from the secular for the Islamists everywhere they are promoting a better understanding of Islam a better acknowledging and resisting discriminations and trying to work for more autonomy and I would say this is what I said and this is what I promote well actually I agree with you that was very ossified at a Turkish bureaucratic intolerant system that to some extent has been opened by the challenge from mr. Orion's party but the reason why turkey continues to be looked on askance by so much of Europe is not because it's the muslim-majority country it was a Muslim majority country long before the European Union was formed and no one no one's just discovered that faith in most history this movement it's because of legal and political reasons one of them is continued illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus which is already a member of the European Union and the expulsion of a large proportion of its population reduction of them to refugee status odion's been worse on now than his predecessors the other the second is the refusal of Turks to admit that they're not the only people living in Anatolia that there's another nation called the Kurds that lives there which has language and and national rights which have been negated on that actually the the early on party's been slightly better than some of the other tactics and the third is the refute the continuing campaign of falsification and lying about the mask for the genocide of the Armenian population a continuing disgrace which are they on whichever is later on just made as I'm spoken of in the most thuggish possible term and a quite a question from from Pittsburgh here it is is there an acceptable literature of interpretation of the Koran similar to the Jewish oral torah that makes sense yes of course you know if you you you you come back to the first the classical Islamic tradition in what we call LuAnn jurisprudence and ethics and you know we have a huge classical tradition the problem very often is that the Muslims themselves they neglect and ignore their own tradition but also the people who are coming to Islam they are just driven by headlines and it's they are simplifying the real that the reality of you know you can get a PhD in the States or anywhere in the in the West without having one notion of what is called Islamic philosophy while the Islamic philosophers of the Philosopher's referring to Islam as much as my manners and and and so many we only know of a rise because he is very close to us but the fact that we refer only to him just showing us how much we ignore about the others do you know that Descartes who came with the rationality and out read himself read the thesis of abu hamid al-ghazali who was talking about doubt and doubt as a sense of getting certitude and a knowledge neglected not known I think that the Islamic tradition is full of that we have to reconcile ourselves with our past in order to come with the diversity of new visions for for the future and I think that this is a missing for all of us I would say that this neglectful Ness towards history and tradition is a problem within the Muslim universe of reference as much as it is for Christianity and Judaism and all the other great philosophies and religions we have a few questions here I don't think we can avoid this tonight about Sharia it's become a kind of a assumption among many Americans now that what Muslims are really after is the imposition of Sharia in every society in which they live even Muslim minority trees and it's not a lot understood about Sharia but what is known is that crimes such as adultery blasphemy apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by the death penalty in to westernize it seems like a whole legal system that's a violation of human rights so what is the intention with Sharia especially for Muslims living in the West is the idea that eventually we get there and we all live under Sharia law you know this is a first is a legitimate question it's an important question because many Muslims living not only in the west by the way throughout the world you have Muslims they denied this they say no no they don't understand Sharia how they reduced Sharia to due to the Penal Code and sometimes it happened but Sharia is not the Penal Code and things and still with this that it's not only the Penal Code we really have a problem with the understanding of Sharia by Muslims and the way it has to be understood in our time and once again many interpretations here you have some Muslims and you cannot deny this their perception of Sharia it starts with the punishment and then it goes towards social justice because you punish you go to and this is for me once again problematic and I'm critical of this but I cannot deny the fact that you have a tiny minority of Muslim scholars they think like that in Nigeria in Saudi Arabia in Egypt everywhere you have another understanding of Sharia which is we start with social justice and then the punishment is part of the whole process and my position I wrote many times on that for example in Western Muslims in the future Islam the understanding of Sharia is the way it was faithfulness in which way we are faithful to some of our principles so it's not a closed system Mohammad Abdu in the 19th century when he was study he was under the British colonisation and he was we don't want this colonization we'd want them out of our country but the parliamentarian system is the best for us as Muslims it doesn't contradict our system and he was of the opinion that the democratic system is not opposed to Islam so you have trans saying this my position on this is that Sharia is the wait what's faithfulness is the way towards justice is the wit words mutual respect and living together so this is why for example when I read the American Constitution of any European Constitution today and it is said all the citizens men and women black or white should be treated equally by law this is my Sharia not going to change this so the point for me it when the principles are respected and the principles of justice is something which are not to system that are opposed they are principles that are common that we can live together so this is where from an Islamic viewpoint from within the Muslim communities in the West you will see that the mainstream position coming from all the Muslim organizations in the West is we abide by the law of the country we are loyal to our country and we act as active and responsible citizens within the country and the only thing that we can say today is look at the facts and the figures and not only the perceptions because I was shocked but what I got as an image I didn't think that this could happen in the States what we had with the community center in New York by people saying Islamization of America I saw this in Europe I thought it was impossible to have it here and then it came here meaning that the people are scared they are there is a great deal of mistrust these people are silently colonizing us so this is where the Muslims and this is what your question is important should come and say look we are American citizens we abide by the law we respect the Constitution we want to be treated equally mutual respect and equal rights no discrimination for any religion or no religion at all this is the way it should be and if you look at facts and figures millions of Western Muslims today are just abiding by the law and they got the three L's that I am talking about in the book is the first there by by the law the second they speak the language of the country English as you speak English or German or British they speak the language and they are loyal to the country they want the best for the country this is what it means to be a Western Muslims or western or Muslim Europeans or Muslim American and I think that this help the Muslims should also speak out about what they want but they also need to be heard when they say things like this because I have been repeating this for 25 years and after 125 years what I get is a smart guy he has a double-talk he say this but he means something else so if someone is telling you always when you say something that you have something else in mind there is no discussion this is once again the end of the discussion because the point is that there is no trust there is no potential discussion and critical discussion and by doing this let me tell you something which is also important it's very contradictive because at the end there is no dialogue it's not possible to talk because if you talk and say oh you are if it's you talk in a good way it means that you have bad intentions and if you speak in a bad way or now we know your intentions so what do you do what are you going to do could we accept that as a closing statement from you and let mr. Hitchens make it good this we've gone over that's why I think that's a fine closing statement thank you do I get the same question I don't mind would you like to close with that um I'll show you oh it really is I find ok like somebody likes her surprises um well sherry are just means law I mean all he would say Sharia law are making an elementary mistaken of course it it's not the case that every thief has their hand lopped off in Muslim society or every adulterer gets stoned and so on I mean I'm perfectly sure that's not just because it would diminish the labor force so radically oh so to speak disable it I think it's more because of something I've claimed to notice else work just the religion is man-made and so there are enormous discrepancies in how these things are promulgated and also how they are enforced and the most countries and societies come quite early and easily to the conclusion that their own religions are in one form or another not not really practice appalled to say I mean after all in in Saudi Arabia woman can't even drive a car whereas in Iran she can vote not for much but she can as much as a man can let's say her vote can be stolen and degraded as much as her husband's or her brother there's an internet there's an internet variation I I don't know it I can't shake what I was when I heard saw once on the BBC from someone whose career in London I followed in if you know him you wouldn't like him got Anjem Choudary so well very well known noise maker around around London complaining about secularism Judaism all this kind of thing and he didn't roll with the law three times and was interviewed on BBC went on about how nothing would change until the green flag of Islam was flying over Downing Street in Buckingham Palace and so forth and was asked I thought quite mildly by BBC interviewer said well if is the way you feel about Sheree are about a total Islamic rule wouldn't you feel happier moving to a country where they already had it and which is it mean a polite question a rather cheap one I mean but still I what didn't prepare me for the answer which Audrey looked straight at the guy and straight into camera said what makes you think this is your country I thought it's a very good question now why do you feel I know I think I know partly why feel what if it is necessary to affirm that and of course a Muslim will look should learn the language should obey the laws should observe observe the customs and so what most immigrants don't feel like so as we absolutely have to say that the answer I suspect is that it's embarrassing to notice that in places like as far apart as Sweden and as Spain there are groups of people who say their countries should be part of the Caliphate and that that's why they've come here and if it wasn't for those people you wouldn't be in this position so it seems to me that to be in order to be consistent you should you should fear them and dislike them find them morally and intellectually repulsive at least as much as if not more than I do and I don't say that you don't but I do think that that is that is the urgent priority on the lady's question about where would be the best country to live if you were a Muslim and wanting to be a member of a sexual or gender minority or I think she said a female or homosexual so hard to confuse actually the easiest the easiest place for you to live in that case would probably be I was thinking about it well professor ominously would probably be this will be my closing ceremony be either bosnia-herzegovina or Kosovo culturally culturally Muslim democratic open societies in southern and bulk and Europe that were saved from obliteration by the power of the United States which has never had a word of thanks for what it did and which remains a secular country with a godless Constitution that's a no that's a no time much weakening which is the best best hope of humanity thank you all right thank you both I hope it's been enlightening evening

Channel: 92nd Street Y

Views: 2,579,772

Rating: 4.6697946 out of 5

Keywords: Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ramadan, Islam, Religion, Peace, Religion (album), Muhammad, Koran, Religion (journal), Prophet, Debate, Quran (Book)

Id: mMraxhd9Z9Q

Length: 91min 21sec (5481 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 04 2013

Reddit Comments

[u/ColdShoulder]

I just came across this portion of the debate, and I think it exemplifies Hitchen's wit, sense of humor, and appreciation for irony.

Edited: Dammit, I misspelled Hitchens in the title!

[u/5py]

FYI; it's Hitchens, not Hitchen or Hitchen's.