i am a nerd and am watching THIS ENTIRE THING. it's a debate exploring the issue of islam as a religion of peace and it is almost 2 hours long....but it's just soooo interesting. i actually really like both sides of the panel for the most part. however, i think that those arguing for the motion are hopelessly naive (mostly the female debator. not so much the british guy. he's been around the block a few times). anyways, they keep arguing about the need for contextualization of the koran, hadiths, etc, when that is exactly the problem, as ayaan and douglas (arguing against the motion) pointed out. islamic fundamentalists, who are much more mainstream in the middle east than the moderate muslims on the panel would have their audience believe, do not debate the multiple interpretations of the koran. they are not allowed to, because of the tradition of submission which is inherent in islam---it's in the name for goodness' sake. this is the precise reason this debate is even necessary, because so many of islam's followers refuse to deviate from the religion's 7th century norms. and these norms are nasty.
as i think ayaan said, it would be wonderful if zeba and maajid represented the muslim community. they seem like really nice, caring, tolerant people. unfortunately that is not the case, or else majority-muslim countries would not have the reprehensible human rights records that they do.
also, i lol'd/cried when zeba cited iran as having "no gender gap in education." wonderful. so both girls and boys are equally brainwashed. is she seriously trying to argue that iran is doing just fine in the gender equality department? shameful.
