The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
PandaTime
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Are Islam and Islamic culture immoral?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Topaet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 101569
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Topaet

Pro

Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e.g. human rights).

Islamic culture = The cultural practices common to historically Islamic people.

Rules:
1. Provide evidence for your counter-arguments.
2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies.
3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate, the second for the opening arguments, the third for rebuttals, and the fourth for closing statements. The fourth round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments.
4. Do not forfeit.
Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules.
Good luck and have fun in the debate!
PandaTime

Con

I agree to the rules and wish you luck in the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Pro

1. Islam is against religious freedom:
[1]: According to the hadiths, apostates are to be punished by death: Sahih al-Bukhari 56:226, [2] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2632, [3] Sahih al-Bukhari 88:5.
[4]: A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 40% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries support the death penalty for apostasy.
[5] According to the Qur'an, apostates will be greatly punished: Quran 9:66, [6] Quran 16: 106, [7] Quran 4:89.

2. Islamic culture supports Islamic terror:
[8] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 28% of the Muslim world population believe that suicide bombings are occasionally, sometimes, or often justified.
[9] A recent study by NOP Research has revealed that about 25% of British Muslims have affirmed that the 7/7 attacks were justified.
[10] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that 35% of French Muslims, 24% of British Muslims, 13% of German Muslims, 25% of Spanish Muslims and 71% of Nigerian Muslims believe that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often, sometimes or rarely justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.
[11] According to a recent study about 42% of Turkish Muslims believe that Muslims were the true victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack, and 20% remarked that the Charlie Hebdo employees had deserved death for depicting Muhammad.

3. Islamic culture is sexist and most Muslims are sexist:
[12] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 86% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that women must always obey their husbands.
[12] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 27% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that women should not be allowed to decide whether they want to wear the veil or not.
[13] Islamic countries have the worst women's rights on earth (Yemen is ranked 144 of 144, Pakistan 143, Syria 142, Saudi Arabia 141, Iran 139, Egypt 132, Turkey 130, United Arab Emirates 124).

4. Islam is homophobic and a large majority of Muslims are homophobic:
[14] According to the Qur'an, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Quran 7:80-84 and [15] 6:165-66.
[16] The only countries where there is still the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic countries.
[17] According to Sharia, homosexuality is to be punished by death.
[18] According to the hadiths, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Abu Dawud 40:112, [19] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2658.
[20] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 89% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Sources:
[1]: https://sunnah.com...
[2]: https://sunnah.com...
[3]: https://sunnah.com...
[4]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[5]: https://quran.com...
[6]: https://quran.com...
[7]: https://quran.com...
[8]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[9]: http://www.cbsnews.com...
[10]: http://pewresearch.org...
[11]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
[12]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[13]: http://reports.weforum.org...
[14]: https://quran.com...
[15]: https://quran.com...
[16]: http://old.ilga.org...
[17]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[18]: https://sunnah.com...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[20]: http://www.pewforum.org...
PandaTime

Con

Muslims are a severely misrepresented group of people. A large percentage of people view them negatively, saying most are terrorists or terrorist affiliated. But is this statement true? Are Muslims bad people just because of their beliefs? I argue that they aren't, and many are making progress towards a better future.

All faiths go through a "phase" where they interpret the texts too literally or take certain passages out of context. Christianity had this phase and it lasted for centuries. This part of history is due to people finding a new excuse to persecute people. They might have a group of people they don't like, such as Jews or homosexuals, and use their faith to justify genocide. A popular example of this is the Crusades, where Christians killed thousands of people in the name of God. The Christian faith was founded hundreds of years before Islam, so the Muslims are behind the Christians on the advancement of their society. This is why the Muslims are still committing acts of terrorism way after the Christians became more civilized.

Muslims are starting to become more civilized. Many people think terrorism is on the rise when actually, the number of deaths has decreased. In the 1980's, there were about 300 deaths per year in North America and Western Europe affiliated with Muslim terrorists. In the 2000's, there were about 75 deaths per year. The number has severely gone down. Acrossed the world, the global deaths went down 12% from 2014 to 2015 and are expected to continue to fall.

Muslims are making a huge difference in the world. The United for Service Association is an organization exclusively for Muslims that brings worldwide change and helps solve huge problems. Some of their projects include providing medical treatment, education, basic needs, and other things to third world countries in Africa and South America. They have already made a huge difference and in the future, more Muslims with join groups that help people instead of kill them.

All of these points still don't justify my claim well though. Just because there are less terrorists and more philanthropists doesn't mean the Islamic faith is moral. So what is my final point, the one that justifies my claim?

The Islamic faith is a great part of society. It brings people closure for loved ones and gives them a reason to love and do good in the world, just like any other religion. The immorality you see on the news and all over social media is not the Islamic faith. It is bad people using religion to justify their hateful murders. The Islamic faith is about loving and worshipping God in everything you do. It is about giving everything to Him and thinking of Him in your actions. It is not about murdering those who don't fit with your beliefs or being sexist towards women. Bad people take passages of the Quran out of context and use propaganda to convince people to kill in God's name, just like Christians did hundreds of years ago. In the future, Muslims will put this part of history behind them and coexist with other people like other, older faiths do today.

Muslims and the Islamic faith are not immoral. The people leading the terrorist organizations are immoral and taint the faith using propaganda to massacre people.

Sources:
http://www.unitedforservice.org...
http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.npr.org...
https://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Pro

"Muslims are a severely misrepresented group of people. A large percentage of people view them negatively, saying most are terrorists or terrorist affiliated. But is this statement true?"
No it is not true "only" about 28% of Muslims support Islamic terror [8].

Are Muslims bad people just because of their beliefs? I argue that they aren't, and many are making progress towards a better future.
Do you have statistics that prove that "many are making progress towards a better future"? (see rule 1)

"All faiths go through a "phase" where they interpret the texts too literally or take certain passages out of context. Christianity had this phase and it lasted for centuries. This part of history is due to people finding a new excuse to persecute people. They might have a group of people they don't like, such as Jews or homosexuals, and use their faith to justify genocide. A popular example of this is the Crusades, where Christians killed thousands of people in the name of God. The Christian faith was founded hundreds of years before Islam, so the Muslims are behind the Christians on the advancement of their society. This is why the Muslims are still committing acts of terrorism way after the Christians became more civilized."
I am not sure whether you are trying to justify the immorality of Islam with a logical fallacy that is called "Two wrongs make a right" [21] which is against the rules (see rule 2). Or whether you admit that Islam is immoral, but explain why it is immoral. I would appreciate it if you could further explain this.

"Many people think terrorism is on the rise when actually, the number of deaths has decreased."
This is wrong as you can see here:



"The number has severely gone down. Acrossed the world, the global deaths went down 12% from 2014 to 2015 and are expected to continue to fall."
You can see why this is a bad argument in the graphic above. The only reason why the number of annual deaths because of terrorism has gone down from 2014 to 2015 is because it went up by more than 80% from 2013 to 2014 [22].

"The immorality you see on the news and all over social media is not the Islamic faith."
My opening-arguments disprove this claim quite well.

"It is bad people using religion to justify their hateful murders."
Are you talking about Muhammad (the Islamic prophet), who ordered the killings of homosexuals and apostates [18],[19],[1],[2],[3]?

"The Islamic faith is about loving and worshipping God in everything you do. It is about giving everything to Him and thinking of Him in your actions. It is not about murdering those who don't fit with your beliefs or being sexist towards women."
It is about both. My opening-arguments proved that Muhammad ordered the killings of homosexuals and apostates [18],[19],[1],[2],[3].

"Bad people take passages of the Quran out of context and use propaganda to convince people to kill in God's name, just like Christians did hundreds of years ago. In the future, Muslims will put this part of history behind them and coexist with other people like other, older faiths do today."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -Hitchens's razor
Please provide evidence for your claims. (see rule 1)

"Muslims and the Islamic faith are not immoral."
I would appreciate further explanation about why killing homosexuals (argument 4) and apostates (argument 1) is not immoral and why gender equality is not required for a moral culture (argument 3).

Sources:
[1]: https://sunnah.com...
[2]: https://sunnah.com...
[3]: https://sunnah.com...
[8]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[18]: https://sunnah.com...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[21]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[22]: https://www.statista.com...
PandaTime

Con

To clarify on the accusations of my usage of a logical fallacy; I did not use the evidence provided in this way. History repeats itself, as many people are aware of. The Islamic faith is much newer than the Christian faith, and is going through its literal interpretation phase, just like the Christian faith did hundreds of years ago. I am not saying that either of these periods of history are moral because two wrongs make a right. I am saying that in the future the Islamic faith will be similar to the Christian faith is today, and will be able to peacefully coexist with Christians and minorities, just like Christians are coexisting with Jews and homosexuals. In the future, we will likely see the Islamic faith similar to how we see Christians today because again, history repeats itself.

Most of your points can be refuted with that statement. The Islamic faith will be seen the same as the Christian faith in the future. Yes, at the current moment, some Muslims are committing terrorism and some support it. But so did Christians. So in the future, Islamic groups will not support this violence and will be seen by other faiths as moral.

Because the Christians used to be sexist, homophobic, and prejudiced towards other faiths, we can likely infer that Muslims will become more accepting in the future. Jesus used to support the Old Testament, which is sexist and homophobic, so we can infer that Muslims will likely steer away from those teachings of Mohammed. They will not ignore these parts, but recognize them the same as Christians view the Old Testament today.

Currently, we can see corruption in the Islamic faith. The leaders of this faith are focusing on the negative parts of the faith instead of its true teaching. The Catholic Church also used to do this. We can infer that in the future Muslims will focus more on the positive teachings and less literal interpretations just like Christians do today.

For further clarification, I am not saying that the parts of the Quran that call for death to certain groups are moral by our standards. But maybe those rules will be seen like much of the Old Testament is today. Those rules were necessary so the faith could start up and overthrow the other "false" (by their definition) faiths. But in the future, those rules will be seen as unnecessary, like the Old Testament.
Debate Round No. 3
Topaet

Pro

"Currently, we can see corruption in the Islamic faith. The leaders of this faith are focusing on the negative parts of the faith instead of its true teaching"
What exactly is this "true teaching" and how comes that you know better about Islams true teaching than Muhammad himself who ordered the killings of homosexuals and apostates [18],[19],[1],[2],[3]?

"For further clarification, I am not saying that the parts of the Quran that call for death to certain groups are moral by our standards."
So you admit that Islam is immoral?

"But maybe those rules will be seen like much of the Old Testament is today."
The debate is about whether Islam is immoral not about whether it will be immoral in 300 years.

"Those rules were necessary so the faith could start up and overthrow the other "false" (by their definition) faiths."
Punishing adulterers with 100 lashes [23] was quite surely not necessary.

Sources:
[1]: https://sunnah.com...
[2]: https://sunnah.com...
[3]: https://sunnah.com...
[18]: https://sunnah.com...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[23]:http://sunnah.com...
PandaTime

Con

To conclude my argument, I will say that on the surface, the Islamic faith seems immoral. But if you dig deeper, you will find that it is not the faith itself, but the people leading it. In the future, Muslims will be able to peacefully coexist with Christians, Atheists, and Jews just like other faiths due today. The Islamic faith might seem immoral today, but this is false. The leaders of the terrorist organizations taking passages of the Quran out of context for their personal benefit are immoral. Islam claims to be the religion of peace, and maybe generations from now, when terrorism is no longer a problem, we will be able to see that clearly, just like other faiths are seen as peaceful today.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: byaka2013// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Interesting. When taken literally it is quite bad

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, nor does the voter explain any of the point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by Topaet 9 months ago
Topaet
"But if you dig deeper, you will find that it is not the faith itself, but the people leading it."
I rebutted this twice already. Look at the Qur'an verses and the hadiths and tell me how it is not the faith, but the people leading it.
Posted by Topaet 9 months ago
Topaet
I apologize for the small graphic you can click on [22] to see the graphic bigger and in a better resolution.
Posted by PandaTime 9 months ago
PandaTime
Sucks that your debates keep getting forfeited by the opposer. Unfortunately for you I don't quit so easy. Also my pronouns are them/they. Thanks!
Posted by usawinseverytime 9 months ago
usawinseverytime
The only way con can ever attempt to win this debate after getting destroyed with facts is by arguing that morals are relative. But unfortunately for them killing people for being gay or leaving the Islamic faith is immoral across all cultures lol. Another argument I predict is something on the lines of "christians do immoral stuff all the times." Another argument is that there is no argument and he should forfeit for all is lost. Deus vult.
Posted by Topaet 9 months ago
Topaet
@SirHarrison0 I hope he won't forfeit, this is the 6th time that I try to have this debate.
Posted by SirHarrison0 9 months ago
SirHarrison0
PandaTime just got destroyed with facts
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 3 months ago
JimShady
TopaetPandaTimeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I've largely held the stance that Islam is not a religion of peace, and although this debate shed some light on the topic, I still hold my view. Conduct goes to PandaTime, because the voice of Topaet sounded a little boastful and he seemed to be talking down to him. Spelling/Grammar is tied, and because Topaet pointed out the illegitimacy of PandaTime's source about thedecrease of terrorism, Pro get's sources. As for arguments, both put up valiant fights, but Con did not put up a proper refutation to the Qauran's command to kill homos and it's sexism. Con's basic argument is that Islam is growing, much like the Catholic Church did. While history repeats itself, it isn't guaranteed. Pro smartly points out the debate is whether Islam is immoral, not whether it is immoral now (but not later). Con basically agrees with that position, and so Topaet wins. Good job to both, but better job to Topaet.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 months ago
Ragnar
TopaetPandaTimeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refusing to answer cross examination left too much non-contested (particularly those sources) in favor of the resolution. The generations from now line of reasoning was the most damning part of con's defense of Islam, because it was repeatedly conceding Islamic culture as "The leaders of this faith are focusing on the negative," which follows hieratically that any under them rebelling against the negative are not the true Muslims (bit of a reversal of the blately No True Scotsman fallacy con used). Pro of course could have done better, such as referring the Christianity comparison with simply pointing out that Con has not proven Christianity to be good (with a link or two to Christian hate groups), which would be required for the line of reasoning to even make sense for some future generation. Con maybe should have argued the subjective nature of morality, as plenty of cultures currently accept a ton of horrible things making pro's case hard to decisively prove.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
TopaetPandaTimeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03