Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1 is acceptance with no arguments.
Round 2 is your arguments with no rebuttals of opponents arguments.
Round 3 is rebuttals/counterclaims and conclusion.
Firstly, my opponent said that "muslims are at war with everyone". This is untrue firstly because the holy book of Islam, the Quran, specifically prohibits violence against the People of the Book, which include Jews and Christians (1). Verse 5:28 of the Quran states that "among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (2). Additionally, my opponent's statement implied that the majority of Muslims are in favor of violence towards those of other religions. This is also entirely false, as 86% of American Muslims say that suicide bombings and other terrorism tactics are never justifiable (3).
My opponent also said that "world war 3 would mean their end". Although an anti-Islam world war would possibly lead to the temporary elimination of extremist Muslims, the cost in lives of such a war would be staggering. Although currently an extremely low percentage of Muslims are terrorists, in the case of a worldwide ban, many Muslims would rather be martyred than give up their faith, as would happen in other major world religions. As there are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide (3), a war against the community of Islam would have disastrous consequences for decades to come. Since one of the reasons in support of a ban on Islam is to reduce violence, this would obviously be extremely counterproductive.
In the argument that "those who try to hide their islamic practises" would receive prison time, my opponent shows one of the reasons against a ban on Islam. That reason is that many Muslims will become crypto-Muslims, one who hides his/her Islamic faith and claims to follow a different faith. This has happened in the past, most notably in the case of the Spanish Inquisition (4). Although some of these crypto-Muslims would be discovered and arrested, it would be impossible to completely eliminate Islam. Additionally, there is the question of the definition of Islam. In addition to becoming crypto-Muslims, some adherents might change the names and practices of Islamic elements. If Islam is legally defined as a religion including the Quran, the prophet Muhammad, or the god Allah, for example, then some crypto-Muslims will simply rename that element of their religion. Should the definition instead focus on Muslim practices, such as praying facing Mecca or fasting during Ramadan, those practices would be changed or eliminating, creating a loophole in the definition of Islam. This demonstrates that a ban on Islam would not be effective, due to crypto-Muslims and the difficulty of defining Islam.
In conclusion, a ban on Islam would not only cause a large war, resulting in the deaths of many innocents, but would also be impossible to enforce. Additionally, banning Islam due to the actions of a extremely small terrorist minority is wrong and goes against the fundamental concept of fairness.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.