Public Debate: Muslims in the West – what is the way forward?

A must see debate featuring MDI’s Abdullah Al Andalusi and three other panelists discussing one of the most controversial issues today: Muslims in the West – what is the way forward?

5 replies »

  1. Starts with agression and intolerance from Abdullah and seems to carry on in the same vein.

  2. This was an excellent debate although it seemed slightly unfair against brother Abdullah to be attacked from all sides as well as by the chair woman! Then again, brother Abdullah appears to have Nur reaching to parts that others could only dream of so I didn’t worry too much for him. The rep from the “Shariah-compliant” Muslim spy consultancy seemed to contribute the least whilst using his intel acquired empathy-based skills to try and “get in” with brother Abdullah. He obviously was quite conscious of the stigma of being labelled a “traitor”. And it appeared that he had bought some fuddy duddy argumentative brothers like the “very senior” brother (what does that mean….admittedly he didn’t make that much sense but still…); as well as the Irish convert brother who seemed to put words into brother Abdullah’s mouth. The Secular democracy rep seemed like a nice young sister but her arguments seemed more like something out of a school homework essay. As for the constitutional monarchist Muslim brother Paul….I found some of his views quite ok, but mostly inconsistent…including the wild concept of an Islamic monarchy (with presumably a Christian Charles or Lizzy as the head of the british Muslims) – where does that come from??? All in all a great debate and I hope to see more like this. Salaam. Adnan

  3. Certainly one of the more peculiar debates I’ve seen. Assuming that fairness was its goal, It seemed to be poorly thought out (especially as pertains to the composition of the participants) and quite poorly moderated. I’m also not certain how organized we can call a debate during which audience members get almost as much time as the participants, nor how fair when the “moderator” takes it upon herself to rebut a speaker. (And in defense of her “Jewish antecedents”? since no one speaks up for the Jews?) I didn’t take away much about what “the way forward” might be for Muslims in the West, despite that being what the debate was supposed to be about. Perhaps the debate title should instead have been, “Why Abdullah is Completely Wrong and Silly and We All Certainly Agree About That and Would Members of the Audience Like to Join Us in Saying So, Please.”
    Kudos to Abdullah for his erudition and composure. Kudos also to Paul (Williams) for calling out the bias of the “moderator,” and kudos to Sami for his contributions.
    This was also my first exposure (sheltered, I know) to liberal Muslims. It all began to seem a bit absurd.

  4. Well this was incredibly one sided. I wish someone else was agreeing with brother Abdullah but he held his position well. It puzzles me, even as a recent convert, who is from a white liberal background, how some Muslims seem to ignore Sharia laws and push it aside. I know that liberal laws do have some good but if we want to live Islam, we need it. Islam is more than just faith it’s a complete way of life and that’s what I don’t see in this debate (except for Abdullah).

    Besides, wasn’t Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) fair with everyone? He lived alongside everybody and they trusted him even asked for his help and advice. If Sharia was so unfair to others then I don’t think they would! Yes the way some Muslim countries are the Sharia would, to say the least, be scary but that’s all down to *education*. We have to educate ourselves to what *true* Sharia is. A tolerent and just system for ALL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s