TV Debate: SECULARISM vs ISLAM -Terry Sanderson (Pres.of NSS) vs Abdullah al Andalusi (MDI)

TV debate on Secularism, covering Gay Marriages, Nationalism, Sharia and Islamic state.
Terry Sanderson President of the UK's largest and oldest Secular campaign organisation, the National Secular Society (NSS) debates
Abdullah al Andalusi, Islamic thinker and speaker for the Muslim Debate Initiative
Programmed originally aired on 15th July 2013

[@Big_Berber]

Well done Abdullah, I am amazed that every time Muslims debate secular/atheist people, the logic of the Islamic approach bulldoze the very vague atheist absence of logic.

[@amixofeverything]

Ha ha! Oh, you're serious. Allow me to laugh harder. HA HA HA HA! Yes...because believing in flying horses and sleeping with 9 year old girls is sooooooo logical.

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

Considering the the Muslims of the early Caliphate permitted Zoroastrians to marry their own sisters and mothers (called 'self-marriages'), despite it being abhorrent, would constitute one example (of many) that demonstrates your lack of historical accuracy. As for non-Muslims having their own areas (which they were not restricted to). Are you saying that granting them autonomy to do what they want instead of forcing them to scatter and assimilate (as the West does) is somehow wrong?

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

No Lekkervoorje, the USA has just outsourced its slaves (conveniently while the industrial revolution had made them redundant) to second and third world countries where they work 14-16 hour days for a 'salary' that's barely enough to feed them and their families - compelling them to work, while their produce gets sold for many times its cost to produce. The West didn't evolve its morality, it just worked out that it was more beneficial to employ them as wage slaves.

[@pamuk7]

Well done to both speakers great respectful debate. Its also fantastic to see secularisms cage being rattled by Abdullah al andulosi.

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

You make an assumption that religious values cannot be proven to be divine, but your argument has refuted itself. For if values are not of any worth if they are human in origin, then what can be said of human originated values under the secular paradigm? You say Secularism is superior because it is fluid in its values, but you've actually just mentioned one of the main reasons why it is dangerous! (e.g. Nazis, Modern Syria etc). Your point that values are evolving, is a statement of dogma.

[@Someone-ct2ck]

amazing

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

Muslims and Christians and Jews were not segregated, they just had their own areas where they had judicial autonomy. The Islamic record of inter-faith co-existence for 1300 years is far better than in Europe over that period of time, or even within the last 100 years.

[@DawahFilms]

Whether explicit or implicit, the role of religion in a secular society has been reduced to a "social club" with no intellectual merits.

[@GrapeFlavouredPop]

Excellent points by Abdullah as always

[@pamuk7]

Through out the whole debate: the secularist ditched the point about hijab ban under secular system.

[@khaledreza9833]

so the Law is 'god' for this secular person

[@suddenuprising]

no, god is the creator of the universe, the law is a set of rules governing conduct. therefore law is not god, and if a secular person believed law is god, they would by definition be non-secular.

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

The discussion by the Muslim jurist Ibn Qayyim about permitting and tolerating zoroastrian 'self-marriage' was mid-Abbassid period! Try reading your history books a little more in depth next time. (as a side point, the persians population never experienced any massacres! I don't know where you got that from).

[@munirahmadqalam-mal5927]

The fluent Abdullah. Love you.

[@mrahman1992]

How comes your on a shia channel?

[@MuslimDebateInitiative]

If a religion, divine or not, does not lose worthy for possessing human originated values, then my point is, no one can agree on these values. For the purposes of politics, I do not need to prove that my values are divine in origin but merely that I believe them to be incontrovertibly so. You disagree, so now what? Must I be subject to you system, because you disagree? I disagree with Secularism, must you become a Muslim? No, so Islam says each to their own political system (unlike Secularism).

[@imicky]

Agree with you brother.

[@timnaf123]

Secularism along with democracy offers something that a religious state cannot the ability to self criticize and therefor conform/change for the better. Islam on the other hand like most religions is infallible by definition because Sharia is the word of God and God by definition is perfect. Mr. Sanders based his arguments on logical rational thought exclusively where Mr. Adalusi fell short because his religion does not base itself on rationality but instead bases itself on static religious texts. Any rational logical person watching this video will see this.

[@hasibrahman3930]

😂

[@madutemsamany7269]

Very strong Brother Abdullah. The counterpart did not have any profound answers on the serious criticism of the secular project. It seems they did not think that project to the end…and the way and the end is fascism. He is condemning fascism and has fascist ideas…one law for all, you need accept laws even if its against your very believes.

[@pamuk7]

In the secularist conclusion he mentiones we should look at america as the correct module for secular representation. However this does not show a consistent model as france secular system shows that baning hijab for example is just. So what we have is contradictions within secular systems.

[@MsNilbymouth]

Intellectual merits should be based on intellectual arguments, not political patronage or religious consensus.

[@MatrixOfDynamism]

such few views?

[@eddiejamesknight]

***** I can understand how Miley Cyrus video would blow a Muslims mind considering the narrow world view they are taught to follow. The modern world is confusing for muslims.

[@abuhussain4111]

+eddie Knight wauw just wauw

[@extra222love]

In Islam, both comply with each other.

[@pamuk7]

Fact: to be fair religion does in fact try to impose its way on people and trys to enforce guidence. And tries to forbid what it sees as bad or in human. But secular system does indeed claim to give equal rights but does not do so if you remain a minority or do not have political figures to make your voice heard. So secularism does indeed fail the minority and even majority at times as minority goverment officials who dont consider majority agenda when passing laws.

[@takarsagafe]

All these things that I have mentioned have always existed even before there Secularism, but today it's openly practiced. Under Secularism there's nothing called immoral, it's like in the animal Kingdom everything is allowed nothing is forbidden. Even things that are considered immoral and is not allowed today will be allowed tomorrow and it will not be called immoral.

[@jacobanderson3891]

I find it increasingly frustrating when I see Abdullah debate Secularists with no or very little knowledge or understanding of the type of Political System that he is advocating. Abdullah has no problem attacking Secularism, but Secularists cannot attack his preferred Political System because they have very little knowledge about it. As a result, you see one-sided debates like this.

[@jacobanderson3891]

I agree that Secularists who campaign against Islamic Law should be more educated on the matter, especially when it comes to the treatment of Dhimmis (e.g. Not being allowed to build any of their respective places of Worship, wear their symbols of worship in public etc). However, I disagree with you saying 'they' assume "religiously minded people are automatically stupid and have nothing to contribute". Contd.

[@DawahFilms]

Maybe they should educate themselves more, instead of assuming religiously minded people are automatically stupid and have nothing to contribute?

[@lekkervoorje]

Ofcourse values evolve. For example: In the year 1800 the cost of a male slave in the US was about $300. Nowadays. that minority group has equal rights. Values change as societies change and most democracies tend to elect people that have the same values as them. Secularism works because as societies change, so do the number of people following certain religions. Secularism ensures that no matter what religion has the most influence, it can never repress other religions.

[@DawahFilms]

Naturally. It's not atheism, after all.

[@DawahFilms]

Apparently a couple people do :)

[@muslimdeen7639]

brother if it was not for Islam you would not be typing on your computer.

[@hussainzakir1]

I think secularism is the best we got but You have to agree that there are many positions for which we cannot reasonably explain why we have such laws.

[@mohammedrahman3718]

hussainzakir1 And that fact alone is terrifying, whose to stop someone like Hitler or Trump from challenging these baseless laws, if nothing is set in stone via a divine constitution of some kind. how can minorities be safe within secular societies? as we've seen with the no fly list, the proposed Muslim registry and Guantanamo in America or the prevent policy in the UK, all these exist or are being proposed despite there being laws of equality and laws outlawing torture, but as it is legislated by a fallible human and not an all powerful being, they may challenge or ignore these beliefs and laws. Whereas in a true Islamic state, laws are set in stone and legislator of those laws are god and therefore cant be challenged, because which human is equal to an allpowerful being? Therefore the rights of minorities to live unoppressed would go, and had gone, unchallenged. you may reply that laws need to be flexible and be able to change with times as those laws may not be representative of the society. I would say to that in Islam new rulings interpreted from the quran and the life of the prophet and the companions may be applied to new situations. furthermore should the laws protecting minorities and the rights of women to work and keep their own money be changed?

[@madutemsamany7269]

The end of secularism is fascism, if religion can not stand.

[@AbnormalWrench]

I think a lot of Buddhists would disagree with you on that.

[@RationalConclusion]

If we want a society which provides equal rights for everyone secularism is the only option.

[@RationalConclusion]

Anyone who opposes secularism opposes equality.

[@MatrixOfDynamism]

Define equality.

[@RationalConclusion]

MatrixOfDynamism Every citizen having equal rights and equal opportunity.

[@catotheelder9524]

Anyone who supports absolute equality support injustice. Should children have the vote?

[@abanganip]

Israel opressed Palestinian, thank you for your silence in Parliment, secular countries

[@south1328]

Equal but different? Or you want total equally which is not possible Bc men and women are created differently biologically.🤡

[@giammira]

Basicly Seculars rightfully demand freedom FROM religion, that is its underlying principle, but without (advocating for the creation of) a formal Constitutional principle to support the claim and counter principle of freedom of religion. That is a bit naif to be frank. Most Western Constitutions were devised right after a period when religions and religious people were oppressed, and in the assumption that the world would be heading anyway towards setting free from religions because that is what gave the final boost to scientific progress, so our forefathers forgot that religions used to be mostly the oppressors and that Secularism in order to stand strong needs principles protecting it FROM them and countering the principle.of freedom of religion at the same Constitutional grade

[@SiegahertzCarmin]

Is this guy just argue that liberty and equality is...against liberty and equality? WHAT?

[@ahmedhamoudi8075]

It is

[@SiegahertzCarmin]

@@ahmedhamoudi8075 By definition it is not.

[@MsNilbymouth]

Your comment makes no sense. Atheism has religious patronage? What are you talking about?

[@Therongunner]

Abdullah is crazy! He is honestly nuts, some of the things he says are crazy.

[@jacobanderson3891]

As a Secularist, I have no problem acknowledging the positive contribution of religious people in our society. So don't make those sort of generalisations.

[@shockofhyperbole]

The law should be based in pragmatic systems, not faith.

[@shoping0166]

SAID WHO

[@johnmcluren9120]

The alternative to secularism is a religious theocracy, since Abdullh al Andalusi is Muslim then the only valid government would be a Muslim government with a sharia law, any other religion are disqualified by Muslims, actually they disqualify each other. There are huge problems with a Muslim government, first of all for them Allah is above everything and everybody, therefore, humans must be governed by Allah representatives (Imams?) since Islam establish that humans are slaves of Allah, humans have no value whatsoever, that is the reason Islam is anti humanist and anti democratic, in democracy humans decide what to do, in Islam, religious leaders who demand servitude to Allah, decide and usually their decision is that people must dedicate their lives to Allah, forget science or scientific method, forget philosophy, forget art, forget music, forget freedom, forget free creativeness, just pray to Allah. The problem with all these is that the majority of mankind are no Muslims the latter claim that it is not a problem they will force the rest of mankind to be Muslim even by using weapons if necessary. Well a lot of people including myself will defend our freedom even if we have to die for it..

[@suddenuprising]

well said

[@khairulikhwanbinkadir7052]

We human are slave...Slave to our desire,social,country and many more.We(muslim) do not impose our believe to other people."there are no compulsion in religion"(2:256)... When a jews came to prophet Muhammad,ask him to judge,prophet said go to their book(laws).. From this we know prophet Muhammad do not impose the law to other people.In muslim civilizations in the past we have jews community with their own laws and we have christian community with their own laws....

[@catotheelder9524]

A non-muslim cannot live under sharia law. Sharia courts only apply to muslims, other people are judged by their own community courts.

[@rickstevens5420]

Around 20:44, it was clear that the muslim guy doesn't understand what secularism is (or intentionally distorts it) or what democracy is (or intentionally distorts it).

[@CalvinGeorgeSisyphus]

Abdullah al Andalusi would not want to live in his own perfect world.

[@thezeitgeist3997]

Such nonsense from Andulasi. He basically defined any moral system as a religion. Redefining words to try and win the argument.

[@007raad]

+dan bounds our morals are derived from our faith systems. like it or not. its fact.

[@thezeitgeist3997]

007raad Are you for slavery then?

[@007raad]

ofcoarse not dan. Islam actually emancipated the slave.

[@007raad]

Muslims, Christians, Pagans almost every nation has a history of enslaving other nations, we have all been at 1 point enslaved, and another point taken slaves. But no one, i repeat no one has enslaved as many people as Capitalism has. A secular materialistic anti God ideology has made slaves of most of the earth. The best slaves are those who dont think of themselves as enslaved.

[@chippledon1]

Are you blind! Liberal markets and free trade have lifted more people out of poverty as well as boosting the standard of living of more people than anything else! More than all of the government assistance programs around the world combined! It (Capitalism) is not perfect. But it's the best thing going.

[@pamuk7]

In the secularist conclusion he mentiones we should look at america as the correct module for secular representation. However this does not show a consistent model as france secular system shows that baning hijab for example is just. So what we have is contradictions within secular systems.

[@SiegahertzCarmin]

But all secular system are different. The us say "you can be religious if you want and be as religious as you want" France said "You can be religious. But if your religion goes against the law, you will lose. And yes, you can't be religious in a public place in France. So a Indou can't pray on the street as can't christians and muslim" Besicly it's a different approche. The public sphere and the private sphere.