The West and the Future of Islam: A Debate Between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The West and the Future of Islam: A Debate Between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain Reviews

• 
  Mason

  I am going to be respectful to Ed Husain and presume that he did not have any knowledge that, before turning up to the event, he was going to be engaging in a debate. I presume this because Husain's style of argumentation, as demonstrated by his opening statement, is intellectually dishonest, relies upon pure rhetoric and some of his arguments are the poorest form of apologetics I've ever seen (it appears that he recognizes that his argumentation is pretty poor, as he constantly throws around pseudo-scholarly words such as "Micro" and "Macro" ). So, you may be asking, what parts of his argument is intellectually dishonest? Well, pretty much all of it. Just to take a statement that he makes in his opening statement: you can't find anything in the Qur'an that says to kill an apostate. This is a complete lie! As it says in Qur'an 3:89:
  
  "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
  
  Furthermore, this is supported by some of the hadiths; Bukhari (52:260): "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
  
  Husain's intellectual dishonesty is not the worst thing about his style of argumentation; he has a tendency of relying on pure rhetoric and using some of the stupidest apologetics I have ever seen. Again, to take an example from his opening statement, Husain attempts to defend the fact that the Qur'an prescribes the use of stoning. His defence revolves around the fact that the Prophet Muhammad did not invent the practise of stoning, it was widely practiced by the Jews and the Arabs (Note: I have no idea if this is true); and that - brace yourself for this moronic trope (I think you may know what it is) - not all Muslims support stoning. This argument is just completely moronic. If we were to follow the logic of his first point, it would be completely moral for me to commit genocide on the industrial scale and to engage in slavery because I did not invent it. Therefore... morally, I cannot be held responsible such actions.
  
  
  Now we need to turn our attention to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. While Ayaan's (I think this is the way she prefers to be addressed) arguments are relatively strong, and that she does make some excellent points, to me (someone who is familiar with her arguments) it appears that she is just on replay and is repeating points she has made in other mediums. And while this is not necessary bad, Husain's poor style of argumentation makes this a relatively boring debate because he fails to push back against some of Ayaan's more weaker points (which can be, and should be, demolished).
  
  All in all, I would say that this a poor debate because one debater, I presume, failed to prepare for this debate and the other debater was just articulating points she's already made.