The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Ban Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 96076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




This is continuation of a debate I was in with @Vi_Spex. Since He/she is not accepting challenges, I kindly ask that only @Vi_Spex accept this debate. Anyone else who does automatically forfeits this debate. @Vi_Spex can start the argument in first round if he/she wants.


Hi, I'm looking forward to this discussion with you. I believe Islam should be banned from the West as it poses great threat to the ideals of liberty and democracy. Throughout history, Islam was infamous for spreading its message by the sword, a concept derived directly from the Quran. The problem is not with Muslims but with the religion of Islam itself. Islam instigates its followers to "cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers" (see Surah 8:12). The actions of Muslim extremists is supported by the Quran and the Hadith leaving many terrorists to believe they are carrying out a divine duty.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, as it is clear that @Vi_Spex is only on DDO to troll, I am willing to hold a civil debate with my opponent, so long as he/she is able to remain polite and respectful. Otherwise, thanks for accepting. I would also like to explicitly say that any claims I make about my opponents arguments do NOT necessarily reflect their actual views and/or personality, since it is possible that my opponent is just making a point for the argument, so I hope that voters don't jump to conclusions about the personality of my opponent. Now I will begin::

My opponent has said that Islam is a "threat to the ideals of liberty and democracy." Therefore, Islam should be banned.
However, the universal facet of democracy and freedom is the freedom of religion. A harsh criticism of extremists is the fact that they do not tolerate other faiths in their "ideal" society. I myself hold to the beliefs that all religions should not be persecuted, according to Islam. My opponent's statement is just as intolerant as the beliefs held by extremists themselves. A ban of Islam not only empowers extremists to incite anti-west propaganda, but it contradicts the tenets of our modern democracy.

The next point my opponent made, "Throughout history, Islam was infamous for spreading its message by the sword, a concept deprived directly from the Qur'an" does not serve as a basis for argument. My those same standards, the Christian faith could be criticized for the Crusades, for example. However, it is completely unfair to judge the religion by a select few who follow it, and I will not stand for someone who attempts to do so.

A main disagreement that I have with my opponent's argument is my opponent has said that the problem lies not with Muslims, but with Islam. I can understand that my opponent does not want to sweep all Muslims under a very broad brush of extremism, however, that isn't necessary to prove Islam should not be banned. There are approx. 1.8 Billion Muslims living in the world today. Only a small minority commit the disgusting acts of murder, rape, etc. At the same time, there are 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, but one would not judge the religion based on white supremacist groups who kill out of hatred, or on the pastor who wished more were killed at the Pulse nightclub shooting.

My opponent's quote about 'casting terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve', could be countered with a quote from the Bible, Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict {of the Holy Man} who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged."( Deuteronomy17:12 ) Since many people are opposed to the "you need to contextualize it" argument, I will now only counter with quotes from other religions, in order to prove that context is needed where religion is concerned.

I must say I agree with my opponent on his/her last point. Extremists DO in fact believe that they are carrying out a divine duty and will be received in heaven as martyrs, since they themselves take quotes from the Qur'an willy-nilly without context. However, they do many things which are COMPLETELY in contradiction to the beliefs of Islam, such as killing in Mosques, and killing by burning alive. Not to sound cliche, but Osama Bin Laden would completely agree with the statement that my opponent has made that Islam is a terroristic, forced religion. BOTH WOULD AGREE. However, Muslims like myself, and the others who follow our religion peacefully, WHILE participating in modern society, do not believe that Islam is a threat.

Now let's bring this argument back to the resolution. Religious freedom is a HUGE part of democratic society, and to ban a faith altogether would de-legitimize the whole idea of a democracy. The first amendment of the United States Constitution sates that all citizens have the right to a freedom of religion, and I propose that we continue to stand by those rights.

I would like to thank my opponent for this first round of debating, and also for remaining civil. Again, my assertions about my opponent's arguments DO NOT necessarily reflect the views of him/her personally. I ask that the voters keep that in mind and judge this on a solely merit based system.


I thank my opponent for responding and I would like to bring up some points as to why I disagree:

Firstly, my opponent said, "the universal facet of democracy and freedom is the freedom of religion". I agree with this statement. Freedom of religion is a core principle of Western democracy. "I myself hold to the beliefs that all religions should not be persecuted, according to Islam". According to Islam, there is no concept of freedom of religion. I would like my opponent to provide evidence in the Quran and/or other Islamic scriptures where religious freedom is recognized. I will provide evidence to the fact that Islam is intolerant of other beliefs:

Quran (4:89) - "They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." Where is the freedom in this verse? This verse clearly establishes that Muslims are not to befriend unbelievers and furthermore those who 'turn their backs' (reject Islam) are to be slain by Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' ". Self-explanatory. Those who leave Islam should be killed. It doesn't sound like freedom of religion to me.

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

The verses above clearly show that Islam and freedom of religion are not compatible. While I respect the freedom of all religions, Islam poses a threat to take that very freedom away from society. I would like to ask my opponent, if Islam became the majority religion of the United States, will democracy and freedom function the same way as it is today. I'm hoping my opponent's honest answer is no. The reality is Islam is intolerant of other religions and the only reason Muslims in the West are "peaceful" today is because they are a tiny minority.

My opponent said that my claim about extremists being inspired by the Quran "does not serve as a basis for argument" because apparently the same could be said about Christianity. The fact is that the Christian Crusades and Muslim terrorism cannot be compared. The difference between Muslim and Christian violence is that Muslims are simply following the commands of Allah when they kill for Islam while Christians are going against the teachings of Christ when they kill in His name. While Allah told his followers to slay unbelievers, this is what Jesus had to say about non-Christians:

Matthew 5:44 "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

1 Peter 3:9 "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing."

Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us to love those who hate us and pray for those who persecute us. Nowhere are we commanded to take up arms and fight unbelievers. When my opponent brings up the Christian Crusades and other historical violence by Christians as a way of attacking Christianity, I would simply dismiss them since they do not follow the teaching of Christ. Muslims, on the other hand, are obeying their religion perfectly when they kill in the name of Allah.

Despite me stating that my problem is not with Muslims, but with Islam, my opponent continued to claim that I was judging Islam by a small minority of Muslims. I'm here to clarify that I judge Islam not by Muslims of today but by the Quran and the actions of Muhammad. Anyone who studies the Quran and Muhammad's life will understand Islam is full of violence and intolerance. On the contrary, anyone who reads the Bible and studies the life of Jesus will understand Christianity is a religion of peace, love and tolerance.

My opponent also quoted Deuteronomy 17:12 in an effort to undermine the Bible. A closer look at the context of this verse should be helpful:

Deuteronomy 17:12 "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel."

The context of this verse is that those who do not show respect and mock the priest of the Jewish temple must be put to death as per the Law given to Israel. This verse only applies to a certain people, in a certain context and at a certain time. This cannot be applied to Christians today as the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 AD. In other words, this is a law given to the nation of Israel not Christians. This verse cannot be applied anywhere else except the given context. On the other hand, the verses of violence in the Quran can be applied in any context as they simply promote attacks on non-Muslims.

Finally, the decision to ban Muslims is not my opponent's or mine. It is ultimately up to the governments of Western nations to decide. If there was a proposed bill to ban Muslims from entering the West, I would be in favor of it. The reality is a country with a large Muslim population is more dangerous to live in. Look at France. Roughly ten percent of its population is Muslim (the highest in any European country) and look at the terrorism there. Statistics show Muslim population has a direct correlation with terrorism activity in that area. I wish it wasn't as such but that's reality and countries need to tighten its borders from Muslims to ensure safety and national security.
Debate Round No. 2


I would first like to thank my opponent for a very civil, thoughtful debate. I was glad to debate in a manner that wasn't repulsively rude, and I can assume that the DDO will feel the same way as well. I ask, in fairness, that my opponent does not make any new arguments in their next round.

I would first like to start by rebutting some items listed by my opponent in respective order, and then I would like to get to the crux of this debate, also stating why I believe I have won. I will now begin.

First of all, my opponent has agreed to my statement that a universal facet of democracy and freedom is the freedom of religion, and therefore wants to ban Islam. Either by that logic, my opponent thinks Islam should be freely practiced in the West, or that he/she does not believe in the freedom of religion. This is a non-sequitur, and my opponent has only tried to justify this logical fallacy by making arguments for why the teachings of the Qur'an does not seem fit to serve as a form of government for western democracies, which is worthy of a whole different debate.

Secondly, my opponent has cherrypicked verses from Islamic text and Hadith without any context and used them as points for why Islam isn't tolerant of other religions. I am only making the "contextualize it" argument because my opponent did so later in his/her argument, therefore the ice has been broken. These points, in reference to above, do not serve as for reasons why Islam in itself needs to be banned, because my opponent has tied added the connotation of these verses as part of the non-sequitur argument. Assuming my opponent tries to reverse this in his/her final round, I will say that this has NO context provided whatsoever. I will reference the issue of context further in this round.

In response to my opponent's question, "if Islam became the majority religion of the United States, will democracy and freedom function the same way as it is today?" My answer is yes. The Qur'an states that one should be loyal to his/her nation. And the constitution is the law of the land here in the United States, therefore, Muslims should follow the laws of the nation they live in. Proof exists in the amounts of Muslims who serve in the military, who put their lives on the line to preserve democracy and freedom, and I will not stand for such a libelous question.

Also, my opponent said that I "cannot compare" the Crusades to extremism committed by Muslims because "The difference between Muslim and Christian violence is that Muslims are simply following the commands of Allah when they kill for Islam while Christians are going against the teachings of Christ when they kill in His name." I agree with the fact that one cannot cherrypick evidence as a basis for undermining a faith, however, I did this to make a point that religion cannot be judged on those who use "evidence" without context, as my opponent has done. So, if my opponent still believes that the Bible MUST be contextualized while the Qur'an cannot, I must state that the line from Deuteronomy still stands. I hate to engage in such libel, but a double standard cannot be in place when discussing the freedom of religion. My opponent then quoted absolutely beautiful verses from the Bible that promote peace, justice, and mercy. And I would like to state that the Qur'an has just as mercifully crafted ones as well, so I do not believe that cherrypicking is a useful source of point of information in debate.

My opponent then stated that In comparison to Islam and Muhammed, The Bible and Jesus were much better moral characters because they did show compassion, peace, love , and tolerance. In response to this unfair statement, I provide this part of what I believe is Eziekiel, "1. They are ordered to destroy all, (1.) Without exception. They must go through the city, and smite; they must slay utterly, slay to destruction, give them their death's wound. They must make no distinction of age or sex, but cut off old and young; neither the beauty of the virgins, nor the innocency of the babes, shall secure them." Now, I understand that my opponent will say that context is necessary, however, my opponent's arguments about context give a double standard. I IN NO WAY, wish to undermine the OT by quoting this, but I am only doing so in response.

Finally, my opponent has said that the decision to ban Islam is not mine, or my opponent's, and he/she would only simply be in favor of it if it was formally proposed. He/she then went on to say that high-Muslim population are directly correlated to terrorism, therefore Islam needs to be banned. However, my opponent has made no remarks about disenfranchisement and isolation that Muslims experience in society. I am not naive, I know that extremism exists, however all aspects need to be considered when mentioning "statistics." Also, by the same logic, would African Americans be "banned" from society because violence is prevalent in areas where there more African Americans present. Maybe my opponent will say that this is different, since race and religion are different, however the point that he/she made was that areas in high MUSLIM populations are more dangerous.

Thank you. Now I will get to the crux of this debate.
We are here debating a ban of Islam, a religion followed by almost 2 Billion people. We set a precedent, in doing so, of disavowing the main facet of democracy, the freedom of religion. Please note, that my opponent still approves of this ban, WHILE supporting this freedom. While I understand that that we both literally cannot actually institute this proposal, we are debating as though we can. I am asking to the voters, a ban on Islam is catastrophic for the whole idea of democracy, and we cannot accept this proposal.

I thank my opponent, and the voters for this debate.
I also ask that my opponent makes no new points, out of fairness.


I thank my opponent for responding in a respectful and thoughtful manner. It's been a pleasure to discuss and debate this topic.

My opponent has suggested that Islam and democracy can coexist without instigating conflict and terror in society. This is a logical fallacy by nature. Islam's fundamental values oppose democracy, freedom, liberty and secularism. Take the United Kingdom for example. The UK has a significant Muslim population (around 5% of the total population). According to polls conducted by the Gatestone Institute, more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and other Islamic extremists. Furthermore, only one in three (34%) British Muslims would report jihadist activity to the police. This is not a few radicals, it's the overwhelming majority.

This brings me to my opponent's answer to my question. My opponent answered yes to "if Islam became the religion of the United States, will democracy and freedom function the same way as it is today?". On the contrary, many American Muslims would be in favor of Sharia Law over American democracy. The fact of the matter is the "peaceful" Muslim majority means nothing because they stay silent when the radicals take over. This is the reason why groups like ISIS are so successful in Muslim countries. My opponent claims there are verses in the Quran which command Muslims to be loyal to their countries. I want to ask for proof for these statements from the Quran. What chapter and what verse do these statements appear? I can't take my opponent's word for it. There is a saying that "The radical Muslim wants to kill you, and the peaceful Muslim wants the radical Muslim to kill you". Muslims deep in their heart have a hatred for non-Muslims because their god hates non-Muslims. In comparison, the God of Judeo-Christianity is a God of love and therefore most Christians are loving people. I won't go into much on that as that would be for another debate.

As for my opponent's criticism of the Holy Bible, the so-called violent verses are not verses of violence and hatred towards any religion but rather military protocol in the nation of Israel. In other words, these are close-ended verses and wouldn't make sense to be applied anywhere except that time and place in the Bible. However, the violent verses in the Quran are open-ended because they can apply to any generation. The issue is not context but the text itself.

My opponent continues to quote verses in the Old Testament which are for the Jews and Israel but fails to quote any verses in the New Testament for Christians. My opponent simply quotes verses without researching to whom they were written to. These military verses of the Old Testament are not for Christians, period. I challenge my opponent to give me one verse where Lord Jesus commands violence. We give importance to the words of Jesus not military commands in the Old Testament taken out of context.

Finally, my opponent talks about isolation of Muslims from society. This is true to some extent BECAUSE Muslims terrorize Americans and Christians abroad. Since Muslims won't speak up against radicals, Westerners can logically conclude Muslims are an enemy of the West and cannot be trusted. My opponent seems to suggest isolation somehow justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents in 9/11 or any other attack carried out by Muslims.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for having a civil, and respectful debate. While there are many things my opponent had said that are false, I respect him/her for the input. I would like to ask voters to see both sides of the argument and choose what they feel is right. There is no doubt Muslims and extremism and anti-democracy go hand in hand. While we can be optimistic about how Islam is peaceful and most Muslims are peaceful, the sad reality is Islam is a religion of violence and hatred. For the sake of all those who died in the hands of Muslim terrorists, please vote for me. Thanks and God bless!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 days ago
>Reported vote: DebaterGood// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con because he did a good job of making points that were really hard for Pro to refute/answer without contradicting himself. Conduct to con since Pro asked loaded questions of Con in last round, where Con couldn't respond, its kinda unfair.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. Merely stating that one side made points that were difficult to refute isn't sufficient for either side. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is allowed to award conduct only in instances where one side was insulting or forfeited. The voter can choose to view certain tactics like this as problematic and even choose to ignore any points made like this, but they may not award conduct on this basis.
Posted by vi_spex 1 week ago
ban islam
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
truth is bad i see
Posted by Overnight 2 weeks ago
please stop @Vi_Spex, your words aren't influencing anyone.
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
Posted by CuriousFear 2 weeks ago
vi_spex is a troll, don't bother
No votes have been placed for this debate.