The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Are Islamic culture and Islam immoral?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Topaet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 101122
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

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).
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!
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello Topaet.

I will accept your challenge.

I am a citizen of planet earth, a member of the human race, atheist and apolitical.

For the purposes of this debate I would like to be regarded as a realist and will proffer arguments based on, what I regard as universal reality.

Hopefully you will enjoy the alternative perspective this might give to the issue.
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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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:
[15] According to the Qur'an, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Quran 7:80-84 and [16] 6:165-66.
[17] The only countries where there is still the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic countries.
[18] According to Sharia, homosexuality is to be punished by death.
[19] According to the hadiths, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Abu Dawud 40:112, [20] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2658.
[21] 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://www.pewforum.org...
[14]: http://reports.weforum.org...
[15]: https://quran.com...
[16]: https://quran.com...
[17]: http://old.ilga.org...
[18]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[20]: https://sunnah.com...
[21]: http://www.pewforum.org...
Sonofcharl

Con

Religion, culture, morality, in fact everything Pro has presented in Round 1 and everything I will present to this debate, are all conceptual non sense.

Not nonsense with it's derogatory undertones, but non sense in the literal sense.

Ultimately, everything is governed by the universal laws of reality. That is to say the laws that give rise to and perpetuate the profound and inexplicable existence of matter within the universe.

The universal laws of reality give no credence to intangible human concepts, therefore rendering irrelevant the conceptual notion that Islamic culture and Islam are immoral.

Similarly the universal laws of reality cannot attribute righteousness, as righteousness is only an intangible concept.

Actions based upon concepts may be tangible, but the universal laws of reality do not proffer any judgement upon or relevance to these actions.

Put into context, this asserts that actions derived from any conceptual religion or religiously based culture, realistically are irrelevant and realistically, cannot be subjected to judgement.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Pro

Please provide evidence (links) for the claims that you have made.
Sonofcharl

Con

There are probably many people who hold similar views to mine and also probably many texts which present a similar philosophical point of view. Nonetheless everything that I presented in round 2 was wholly derived from personal philosophical thought.

I firmly believe that using third party evidence (especially to validate a personal philosophical proposition) is often corrupting of a personal point of view and diminishes the validity and purity of thought.

Whereas. Pro presents argument and evidence in a statistical and impersonal format, transferring the burden of proof and weight of responsibility onto the shoulders of others.

Two differing debating styles, which will hopefully be judged with due respect to their respective differences.

As Pro offered no new argument or rebuttal in Round 3. In fairness I will only take this opportunity to reiterate my standpoint.

As a realist, I have taken Pro's opening question and attempted to strip it back and expose it to the basest and purest form of scrutiny. That is to say, from a universally real and non conceptual perspective. Emphasis here, must be placed on the word "attempted" as it is probably impossible for a human being to be wholly non conceptual.

Nonetheless. When Pro's question is viewed from this perspective, the need for judgement is negated and whether or not Islamic culture and Islam are immoral becomes irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
Topaet

Pro

"Two differing debating styles, which will hopefully be judged with due respect to their respective differences."
My opponents "debate style" is unfortunately against the rules (rule 1)

My opponent did not give a clear definition for "universal laws of reality" which makes it pretty much impossible to refute his "claims".

I simply googled "universal laws of reality" and chose the first result [22] as the definition.
The first law: The Law of Mentalism: Cause and Effect:
There are no coincidences. Everything that happens has a cause. We are thought emanations of the One Mind that thinks and speaks all things into being, breathes life into us, and supports our every need.

This is wrong, true randomness exists: "According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random." [23].

I recommend you to properly inspect [22] and form your own conclusions about whether it seems reasonable.

Sources:
[22]:https://www.lynneforrest.com...
[23]: Nature.com in Bell's aspect experiment: Nature
Sonofcharl

Con

Applying rules to a debate. Negates all purpose and reason for that debate.

With regard to definition. When one uses ones own logic to oppose an argument, then similarly one can only proffer ones
own definition.

"Universal laws of reality". "Laws that give rise to and perpetuate the profound and inexplicable existence of matter within the universe". I do not think I could give a more clear and concise definition.

As I stated previously. Pro relies solely on impersonal third party references to validate their argument. To be blunt and honest, Pro does not or cannot think for themselves. So when confronted with rhetoric that defies the parameters and rules of convention, their only recourse is to apply rules.

As I stated from the outset, my approach to this debate would not be conventional.

Once again to reiterate. "Are Islamic culture and Islam immoral"? When regarded within the context of the ultimate, universal laws of reality, religion, culture and morality become irrelevant.

For the purposes of this debate, the above statement concludes that Islamic culture and Islam cannot be immoral.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 1 year ago
WhyAbhorReality
I can't cast a vote as yet as I'm new and haven't done any debates but here's my thoughts anyway.
Islamic culture and faith from an outside perspective can be seen as immoral, in regards to the treatment of women, minorities and anyone who doesn't uphold the law (religion). Held to judgment by western morals, defined by law (separate from religion) that were sculpted and defined through centuries of christian, judaeo-christian values, Islamic culture clearly doesn't fit the 'rules'. Strangely however, they forget those values also included persecution of women, burning of 'witches' through superstition, the suppression of science due to superstition, and most importantly for those at the top as a means of subverting the masses to their will. Propaganda by one religion on another is usually a means of political psychological warfare, which has been practiced since the earliest civilizations. The Islamic hate is therefore fueled by religion and politics, and also by Islamic leaders towards Christians/Jews/Western Culture. They both believe each other to be evil, those who want war push hate through propaganda. It works. All cultures can be considered immoral when judged using the values of another culture, which Sonofcharl explained eloquently and accurately, despite breaking the rules ;)

Jihadists and followers of ISIS/Daesh want a war between all Muslims and everyone else. By judging Islam as a whole, which it is not, it is almost as diverse as Christianity, you are putting out a false statement which creates hate and fear of Islam in ignorant or religious thinking minds, the act of psychological warfare in motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Are you not then pushing the same Agenda as the Jihadists themselves? They want war between all muslims and everyone else, and the haters of Islam want war between Islam and everyone else.
It asks some serious questions. Could it be someone is playing both against each other? Religion...
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RFD:
Agree before: Con
Agree after: Con
Conduct: Tied
Spelling and grammar: Tied
Convincing arguments: Pro. Pro clearly explained that this debate was about evidence -- and followed that up with a ton of sources. Con tried to argue for a weird form of moral nihilism, but Pro again clearly explained the idea of morality that they would be assuming for the round. As such, all of Con's arguments are irrelevant to the topic and all of Pro's go unrefuted.
Sources: Pro. See above.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Anyway. How can we get rid of it...We can not..So what will happen happens..
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No it is not. Hitler was not immoral according to nazism.
Posted by Swagnarok 1 year ago
Swagnarok
You a DC fan by any chance? I'm asking because of your pic.
Posted by TheDragon5 1 year ago
TheDragon5
You might want to specify, or change the topic. Otherwise people will just use the bare definition of "moral" to say that it IS moral..... in Muslim countries!

Trust me, it's happened to me before.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
TopaetSonofcharlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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's primary and sole argument is that there is some wierd "universal law of morality" that does not care about human rights. If this is what Con felt then they shouldn't have accepted this debate as Pro clearly defined immorality to be actions and principles that contradict established human rights in Round 1. Pro should have constructed his arguments by listing the various human rights (citing the United nations) and then going through all the human rights violations in the Islamic doctrine. But, I suppose the basic human rights are common knowledge so I can accept Pro's arguments however I encourage them to take the suggestion I have given. Con does not rebut the sources given by Pro nor the facts. Con is correct when he says that Pro didn't really construct an argument but rather just gave a list of sources that did the talking for him. Although this is true, the resolution is still affirmed as the sources did prove prove the resolution and Con didn't make appropriate rebuttals