I would like to present a video featuring a debate between me and Terry Sanderson, President of the oldest and largest Secularist campaigning organisation in the UK, the National Secular Society (NSS).
The topic was to what degree should religion (or Secularism) influence the State?
It was an exciting debate, which touched upon the issue of Gay Marriage, the failure of Secularism to bring peace and stability in MOST countries where it has been tried, the false claim of Secular State neutrality, and the oppression of religious conscience both in the West, and around the world – and the superiority of the Islamic alternative that respects true pluralism, and diversity of religious conscience.
Shockingly, please notice in the debate how I get the Secularist to admit that you cannot have people being free to live according to their conscience!!
The only point he could say to back up his statement was, ‘what if a racist acted on his conscience and refused to act as a civil servant and marry mixed race couples? It was clearly a weak argument, considering that in the Secular state, there is imposed uniformity. In Islamic history, Jewish rabbis were allowed to refuse marrying a jewish woman to a Christian man. The couple would just go to the Christian area, and easily found a priest to get it done, with no problems, and no social strife. But in Secularism everyone must conform. Now racism is an extreme example he used, but I could counter against Secularists (and did during the debate) the REAL LIFE example of the Christian Registrar who was fired for their job in the UK, for refusing to be FORCED to marry a same-gender couple.
Anyways, I leave the rest of the arguments for you to see in the video. Inshallah please share with as many people as you can, this video contains some good textbook refutations of Secularism, and should be useful for intellectual refutations of the common irrational Secularist arguments.
Categories: Debates, Featured, Liberalism & Secular Democracy, Videos
The Muslim Debate Initiative 
Terry Sanderson’s claim, that we are welcome to worship in our own fashion and that our beliefs are “protected” by the Human Rights act, is very misleading; he should have clarified his claim by saying that we are free to worship, but only according to HOW SECULARISTS DEFINE WORSHIP
He did actually hint at what that definition is, when he spoke of ”harmless religios practices” in churches temples mosques etc…..in other words, their definition of worship is a very narrow one that basically covers the rituals we follow in our place of worship, but nothing else.
In Islam however, worship is the framework of our whole existence, covering all our actions, spiritual and physical.
So a woman wearing a hijab is not just fulfilling a religous duty, she is also performing an act of worship.
In a secular society her right to worship in that particular way can be taken away from her by law as has happened in France.
So don’t be fooled by all the rhetoric…secularism will not protect your deen, it will only force you to conform to theirs.
Terry Sanderson was rather disingenuous in a lot of things he said:
1. He spoke of parliament and Muslim MP when even the most uneducated know that the executive control parliament and the Muslim MPs are un-Islamic.
2. Giving examples of majority Muslim countries as representative of Islam when it is the west that imposes the dictators on those countries.
3.”the law says we do not have second class citizens” Really Really.
4. His definition of religion is narrowed down to ritual only to the extent that he believes that secular legislators should be allowed to define what a religion is.
In mentioning the European Convention for Human Right the real problem they are having with it is that designed for white Jews and now brown people are using it they don’t like it anymore.