Ayaan Hirsi Ali SHOCKS the Audience at Intelligence Squared Debate in New York: ‘Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace’!
Islam is a Religion of Peace? The Explosive Debate at Intelligence Squared in New York
In one of the most electrifying debates to ever take place in New York, two opposing sides went head-to-head to argue whether Islam is truly a religion of peace. The Intelligence Squared debate at the Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, held in 2010, captured the attention of audiences across the world. The motion for the night was straightforward: “Islam is a religion of peace.” The stakes were high, the arguments fierce, and the consequences far-reaching as two dynamic teams presented their case.
The debate included prominent figures such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic of radical Islam, and Zak Khan, a Muslim American advocate for peace. The debate wasn’t just about the principles of Islam—it was about the future of global peace, the role of religion in shaping societies, and the ideological clash between the West and Islam. The event shed light on the complex realities of Islamic belief systems, with both sides arguing passionately about what defines Islam and how it impacts the world today.
.
.
.
A Clash of Ideologies
The evening kicked off with Zak Khan presenting the case in favor of the motion. Khan, who rose to prominence after participating in a Washington Post reality competition to find the next pundit, argued that the mainstream Islamic community is a peaceful one. He pointed to the 93% of Muslims worldwide who, according to Gallup polling, live peaceful lives and practice Islam in ways that promote tolerance, charity, and understanding. Khan also drew attention to the teachings of the Quran and the Hadith, which he argued emphasized peace, respect for others, and justice. He further stressed that the small percentage of extremists responsible for violence are politically motivated, rather than religiously motivated, pointing to groups like ISIS and their hijacking of the faith for their own purposes.
“This debate isn’t about Islam versus the West. It’s about moderates versus extremists,” Khan said, calling for the world to distinguish between the radical minority and the peaceful majority of Muslims. His message was clear: Islam, at its core, is a religion that promotes peace, and the violent extremists do not represent the faith as a whole.
But his argument was met with fierce opposition. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament and vocal critic of Islam, delivered a scathing rebuttal. She opened by acknowledging the positive attributes of Islam practiced by millions of peaceful Muslims, but quickly shifted to a critique of Islam’s history and its core teachings. Hirsi Ali argued that while many Muslims are peaceful, the teachings of Islam—specifically the life of Prophet Muhammad and the doctrines found in the Quran—cannot be ignored. She warned that the foundation of Islam includes a violent history, with conquests and forced conversions, which laid the groundwork for much of the radicalism we see today.
Hirsi Ali also pointed to the concept of jihad, and how it has been used throughout history to justify violence in the name of religion. “The Quran is filled with verses that call for violence against non-believers,” she said. “It’s not just a fringe interpretation—this is the core doctrine of the religion, and it’s something we have to confront.”
History and Politics
As the debate continued, the conversation turned to the political context of radical Islam. Hirsi Ali emphasized that Islam has historically been spread through both spiritual conviction and military conquest. She spoke about the rise of the Islamic Caliphate and its treatment of non-Muslims, describing how Jews and Christians were given second-class status under Islamic rule and forced to pay a protection tax (the jizya) if they wanted to avoid conversion or death.
“I understand the argument that not all Muslims are radical, but we cannot deny that the history of Islam includes the conquest of nations, forced conversions, and violence,” Hirsi Ali said. “When you look at the spread of Islam, it’s not just about peaceful preaching—it’s also about military expansion.”
On the other side, Khan pushed back, arguing that Islam’s historical context must be understood within the time it existed. He compared the actions of early Islamic leaders to other historical figures like the founders of Western empires, many of whom engaged in violent conquest in the name of spreading their ideologies. Khan argued that to judge Islam by the actions of extremists or its historical conquests would be to misunderstand the religion as a whole. He emphasized that the majority of Muslims today reject violence and that modern-day Islamic scholars have denounced extremist interpretations of the faith.
“Islam is evolving,” Khan argued. “Just as Christianity has undergone reformation, Islam is capable of evolving as well. We need to support those Muslims who are working for peace and reform within their communities.”
Extremism and Terrorism
One of the most powerful moments of the debate came when the topic turned to terrorism. Hirsi Ali called out the persistent link between Islam and terrorism, particularly the rise of radical jihadist groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. She argued that while the majority of Muslims are peaceful, the violent actions of these groups are rooted in Islamic texts and teachings. “The violent minority may be small, but they are influential,” she said. “Their ideology is grounded in the core teachings of Islam, and that’s a reality we have to face.”
Khan, however, argued that terrorism is driven more by political factors than religious ones. He pointed to the ongoing political struggles in the Middle East, particularly the exploitation of Islam by extremists to justify their violent actions. “We can’t ignore the political context in which these groups operate,” Khan said. “These are not religious movements—they are political movements that use religion as a cover.”
Can Islam Evolve?
As the debate neared its conclusion, both sides grappled with the question of Islam’s future. Hirsi Ali argued that while Islam can change, it will take a monumental effort, and it’s unclear whether reform is possible within the framework of the religion’s core doctrines. She warned that the ongoing radicalization of Muslim youth, especially in Europe and the U.S., is a direct result of the failure to confront the teachings of Islam head-on.
Khan, however, expressed hope for the future of Islam, pointing to the growing number of Muslims who are calling for reform and greater tolerance. He argued that the best way to address radicalism is not to condemn the religion as a whole but to support the efforts of peaceful Muslims who are working for change within their communities.
A Divided Audience
In the aftermath of the debate, the audience was divided. Some applauded Hirsi Ali’s bold stance, while others supported Khan’s optimistic view of Islam’s potential for peace. The debate sparked a larger conversation across America about the role of religion in modern society and the challenges posed by radical ideologies.
As the debate concluded, the question remained: Can Islam evolve into a true religion of peace, or is its history of violence and conquest too deeply ingrained to overcome? The answer is unclear, but one thing is certain—this conversation is far from over. In the years to come, the debate about Islam’s role in the world will continue to shape the global discourse on religion, politics, and peace.
A Fight for the Future
The Intelligence Squared debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace provided a powerful platform for discussing the complexities of Islamic history, radicalism, and reform. Whether one agrees with Hirsi Ali or Khan, the discussion is vital to understanding the future of Islam in a rapidly changing world. As America continues to grapple with the challenges of terrorism, extremism, and religious tolerance, the debate over Islam’s place in society will remain one of the most important issues of our time.
