The Instigator
WorldSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
RedAnarchist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does Islam Teach Terrorism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
WorldSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 82934
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (65)
Votes (2)

 

WorldSkeptic

Pro

I know that a lot of Muslims are not violent, and I acknowledge and admire that, but it does not mean that Islam is peaceful. There are numerous violent teachings in the Quran:
"Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide (5:80)"

All infidels will burn in a hell-hole (7:40-41), (7:36), (5:86), etc.

"Therefore We took retribution from them; therefore We drowned them in the sea: because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of them." (7:136)

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (9:5)

I will offer more if it is so needed.
Mohammad was out of the question violent, and history can't be denied. The reason why Islam is violent is because it was written by a warlord, but it doesn't mean EVERYONE who follows it is violent. Reformation is still possible, but it is undeniable that Islam is violent.
RedAnarchist

Con

I suppose I will set the rules and definitions as Pro has not done so.

Definitions

Islam – A monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad.

Terrorism – 1. Any act performed with the intent to instill terror.
2. Acts of violence against any person or group of people in the interest of political figures or goals.

Teach – 1. To spread knowledge, be it fallacious or not, to a person or group of people.
2. To show or explain to someone how to do something.

Rules

1. Breaking the round progression as listed below is an automatic forfeit.
2. The use of derogatory terms either towards the subject of debate or the opponent is not allowed.
3. The use of profanity is not allowed.
4. Citing sources is a must.

Round 1 – Acceptance, rules, and definitions.
Round 2 – Opening arguments.
Round 3 – Rebuttals.
Round 4 – Closing statements.

I would like to thank Pro for engaging this debate with me, and I look forward to their argument.
Debate Round No. 1
WorldSkeptic

Pro

Do not order the debate as you wish Con, as I am the one who invited you to it. Thank you for specifying the terms, (and I agree with them) but I did not specify the organization because I wish that in this debate there be free rebuttals as soon as I started my arguments, which I assumed you would do. Anyway, I will repost again, but Con could have (and still should) just start addressing the points I gave in the first round.

I know that a lot of Muslims are not violent, and I acknowledge and admire that, but it does not mean that Islam is peaceful. There are numerous violent teachings in the Quran:

"Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide (5:80)"

All infidels will burn in a hell-hole (7:40-41), (7:36), (5:86), etc.

"Therefore We took retribution from them; therefore We drowned them in the sea: because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of them." (7:136)

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" (9:5)

I will offer more if it is so needed.
In case the point is made that Mohammad was peaceful, I affirm that he was out of the question violent, and history can't be denied. The reason why Islam is violent is because it was written by a warlord, but it doesn't mean EVERYONE who follows it is violent. Reformation is still possible, but it is undeniable that Islam is violent.
RedAnarchist

Con

Very well, then. I apologize for the miscommunication. I will now present my argument.

Religious Beliefs are not Set in Stone

While it is a fact that Islam and many other religions are incredibly violent in scripture, these features are not defining aspects of the religions. To say that Islam is a religion of terrorism based simply on the scripture is absurd. While Islam is based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, from a more philosophical and etymological standpoint religion is not entirely based on scripture. To be religious is not necessarily to ardently follow the scripture or teachings of prophets.

The Muslim Population is Prominent in Third-World Countries

As seen in the above picture, the Muslim population is most common in third-world countries. The reason why this is such a big deal is because of the general lack of proper education, cultural differences, and political repercussions of imperialism in these regions lead to numerous groups that use Islam as a casus belli. These groups do not necessarily need to even follow the religion of Islam, they simply need to use it as an excuse to achieve their political aims.

In a study done by UNESCO, in 2000 52% of school-aged children were enrolled in primary (elementary) school in sub-Saharan Africa. This is the lowest enrollment rate of any region. Moreover, this study reported gender inequalities in participation; some regions having a substantially larger amount of boys enrolled, and others a substantially larger amount of females, where males would stay home to tend the farm. Africa had more than 42 million children, almost half of the school-aged child population, not receiving education. In 2005, 40% of school-aged children did not attend school, and still there are 46 million school-aged children who’ve never stepped into a classroom.

With such a severe lack of education, it is not surprising that some of the Muslim population, again focused in these third-world countries, is more prone to violence to get their point across, as they lack the education to properly engage in political discussions and negotiations. With this in mind, one should be able to conclude that the violence connected to the Islamic faith is not the result of religious teachings, but rather a result of political interests and lack of education. The scripture is merely used to reinforce their causes as a form of propaganda.

The Qur’an is not Entirely Hateful Scripture

The Qur’an is not entirely comprised of hateful messaging. One could just as easily pick incredibly passionate and loving passages from the Qur’an as you have with the hateful messages. The fact that the Qur’an has these messages is not in itself a valid reason to declare it a religion that teaches terrorism. Nor is it any good reason to single out Islam, as hate groups and extremists are found in every religion.

I conclude my argument.

Debate Round No. 2
WorldSkeptic

Pro




A minor detail, don’t worry. Thank you for your arguments

Firstly, you say: “To say that Islam is a religion of terrorism...“ I want to clarify that the topic of the debate is “Does Islam TEACH terrorism”, so I do not mean that the whole religion is terrorist.

While Islam is based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, from a more philosophical and etymological standpoint religion is not entirely based on scripture.

It doesn't matter that the religion is "philosophically" not completely based on scripture. Islam is as completely dependent on scripture (Qur'an, Hadith) as Christianity is based on scripture (The Bible). The rest is personal, but academically speaking, you cannot dismiss the Qur'an or the Hadith even a little bit. The point of the debate is to prove that Islam itself teaches violence (terrorism). This includes scripture, as there are many calls for violence in it.

"To be religious is not necessarily to ardently follow the scripture or teachings of prophets"
As for the second, I agree, I hope that it did not come across that I said such a thing.

“With such a severe lack of education, it is not surprising that some of the Muslim population, again focused in these third-world countries, is more prone to violence to get their point across, as they lack the education to properly engage in political discussions and negotiations”

I agree that their very low level of education has a very bad effect, and that for this reason more educated Muslims are not normally fundamentalists. However, it is not true that you say:

“With this in mind, one should be able to conclude that the violence connected to the Islamic faith is not the result of religious teachings, but rather a result of political interests and lack of education. The scripture is merely used to reinforce their causes as a form of PROPAGANDA.”

The problem is that all three are intrinsically related, and I have to disagree that scripture is merely a form of propaganda. For a specific reason Muslim terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” before they blow themselves up, they believe that they are doing something divinely ordered or allowed, and they believe that they will go to heaven with 72 virgins and rivers of wine. (2) ISIS, for example, teaches children the Quran and how to defend the faith before sending them off to create a Caliphate or an Islamic State (i.e politics). (1) Ultimately, even though there are other factors that take play in terrorism, it does not erase the fact that Islam itself (The Quran, the Hadith) teaches violence.

“The Qur’an is not entirely comprised of hateful messaging. One could just as easily pick incredibly passionate and loving passages from the Qur’an as you have with the hateful messages.” Even though this is true, it has no consequence on the fact that Islam still teaches violence, which is what I try to prove in this debate. Pointing out that there are also loving verses is irrelevant, as the point of the debate is to prove that Islam teaches violence, regardless of other passionate, neutral or stolen passages or chapters.

“The fact that the Qur’an has these messages is not in itself a valid reason to declare it a religion that teaches terrorism. Nor is it any good reason to single out Islam, as hate groups and extremists are found in every religion.” Of course it does, if Islam has messages and sanctions for violence, it means that it teaches them. When it orders to kill infidels, it is a logical follow-up to say that it teaches violence against infidels. The last sentence is also irrelevant because we need to single out Islam, as it is the topic of the debate. Not only this, but the fact that hate groups and extremists are present in other religions does not justify that Islam has them too, or changes the fact that it teaches violence.

As most of the arguments written by my opponent have no relevancy to disproving that Islam itself teaches violence, and none of the verses I have compiled have been dismissed as non-violent, I remain with the arguments I started with before. I await Con's arguments.


        1. https://www.youtube.com... (1:25-3:14)




        1. https://www.youtube.com... d

RedAnarchist

Con

I would like to thank Pro for providing an argument.

Pro: The scripture is not a form of propaganda.

The scripture itself is not propaganda, but to reiterate my point, it is used as propaganda. The large majority of Islamic hate groups may be comprised of those who are actually following what they’re told through scripture, but the only reason they find it to be correct is through the charismatic ramblings of their leaders.

Pro: ISIS teaches children the Qur’an

Did you not consider the fact that members of the Ku Klux Klan teach/taught their children the Bible? Why is it that ISIS teaching the Qur’an to children validates the point of Islam teaching terrorism? Is it not the fault of ISIS for providing them with the information in the first place?

The religion itself is incapable of “teaching” anything to anyone, it is of the reader’s own will or the will of those who enforce the teaching of the scripture to allow this information to be drilled into their head. You’re point here is not that the religion teaches terrorism, but that the religious groups and authorities teach terrorism. There is an important difference.

Pro: “Ultimately, even though there are other factors that take play in terrorism, it does not erase the fact that Islam itself (The Quran, the Hadith) teaches violence.”

What you are doing is highlighting the fact that Islam includes violent scripture. You are making out Islam to be a religion of hate and violence indirectly through your phraseology, even if unintentionally. It is not a defining aspect of Islam to be hateful. It is only made out to be for a plethora of political reasons.

Pro: “Pointing out that there are also loving verses is irrelevant, as the point of the debate is to prove that Islam teaches violence, regardless of other passionate, neutral or stolen passages or chapters.”

On the contrary. If Islam teaches violence such as you describe it, that is to reach violence regardless of all other messaging, a logical conclusion would be that one could remove all the loving and passionate passages and the religion as a whole would not change to a large degree. This is obviously false.

Pro: “When it orders to kill infidels, it is a logical follow-up to say that it teaches violence against infidels.”

Yes, it is a logical follow up when speaking strictly of these passages, however in the picture of the religion as a whole, to say that x percentage of the Qur’an is hateful messaging therefore the entire religion teaches terrorism is not a logical conclusion. It is simply nitpicking.

Pro: “The last sentence is also irrelevant because we need to single out Islam, as it is the topic of the debate.”

This is circular logic. “Singling out Islam is okay because it is the topic of debate because it is okay to single out Islam” is where this argument leads. When I say that it is not within reason to single out Islam, I mean to say that singling out Islam in the first place is not reasonable due to the fact that Islam is only one among many religions that involve violent passages in their scripture.

Debate Round No. 3
WorldSkeptic

Pro

“The scripture itself is not propaganda, but to reiterate my point, it is used as propaganda. The large majority of Islamic hate groups may be comprised of those who are actually following what they’re told through scripture, but the only reason they find it to be correct is through the charismatic ramblings of their leaders.” If we followed this line of logic, the Crusades used Catholicism as propaganda. Politics, education and religion are TOGETHER in this conflict. The Caliphate (which is what ISIS is trying to achieve) is a Muslim concept! It is the rule of an entire land governed by Islam and reigned over by a caliph, a political and religious successor of Muhammad. (1) This proves my point that all three (politics, religion and education) come together.

“Did you not consider the fact that members of the Ku Klux Klan teach/taught their children the Bible? Why is it that ISIS teaching the Qur’an to children validates the point of Islam teaching terrorism? Is it not the fault of ISIS for providing them with the information in the first place?” How does that matter? Of course the Ku Klux Klan taught children the Bible, because the Bible has sanctions for slavery! (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:44) Yes, it is the fault of ISIS for reinforcing the teachings of the Quran that children do this, but they got it out of the Qur’an nevertheless!

“The religion itself is incapable of “teaching” anything to anyone, it is of the reader’s own will or the will of those who enforce the teaching of the scripture to allow this information to be drilled into their head. You’re point here is not that the religion teaches terrorism, but that the religious groups and authorities teach terrorism. There is an important difference.” Again, that is nonsense. It would be like saying that it is the reader’s choice when reading “The Communist Manifesto” to decide whether it is an invitation to capitalism or a condemning of it. And no, my point here is not only that religious groups and authorities teach terrorism, I am saying that Islam does. Terrorism, violence, and hate. How? I already provided 3 verses on the matter, which you have not referred to at all. I will provide a couple more below. How is ordering people to slay idolaters not teaching violence? The fact that it is a book makes no difference, like I said. “The Communist Manifesto”, for example, teaches the reader the failures of capitalism and it sanctions getting rid of the bourgeois.

“It is not a defining aspect of Islam to be hateful.” It is a defining aspect. Why? Because Islam has A LOT of violence in it, the majority of it, as a matter of fact. Does it have love or mercy? Yes! It is lesser, but it is still present, the point NOW is to show that it teaches violence.

“On the contrary. If Islam teaches violence such as you describe it, that is to reach violence regardless of all other messaging, a logical conclusion would be that one could remove all the loving and passionate passages and the religion as a whole would not change to a large degree. This is obviously false.” This is the biggest straw-man so far. I did NOT say that. I said that for the point of this debate, pointing to loving verses does not disprove that Islam teaches violence. I did not say that we should get rid of these verses, or that they don’t matter to the religion as a whole. I meant that we need not refer to them for THIS DEBATE.

“Yes, it is a logical follow up when speaking strictly of these passages, however in the picture of the religion as a whole, to say that x percentage of the Qur’an is hateful messaging therefore the entire religion teaches terrorism is not a logical conclusion. It is simply nitpicking.” I do not intend to bore the reader, but I have to take this point because Con is again straw-manning my argument. I said very specifically in my first rebuttal:” Firstly, you say: “To say that Islam is a religion of terrorism...“ I want to clarify that the topic of the debate is “Does Islam TEACH terrorism”, so I do not mean that the whole religion is terrorist.

Hopefully for the last time: I am not saying that the entire religion teaches terrorism, I am saying that most parts DO. I even conceded that there are loving passages, although these don’t matter to the debate. Con is guessing that this is my point of view, even though I’ve never said the entire religion is terrorist at ANY point.

“When I say that it is not within reason to single out Islam, I mean to say that singling out Islam in the first place is not reasonable due to the fact that Islam is only one among many religions that involve violent passages in their scripture.”

As for the last claim, I have NOT SAID that other religions aren’t violent. They are! Many are! This doesn’t matter because we are talking about ISLAM. If I were talking about Biblical religions, I would mention HORRID passages in the Bible, but for now, I’ll mention HORRID verses in the Quran.

I am very disappointed at Con’s rebuttals, as she has repeatedly put words in my mouth or straw-manned my arguments throughout the whole debate. As promised, here are a few more verses, for the interest of the reader:

22:19 These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,

22:20Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;

22:21And for them are hooked rods of iron.

22:22Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.


4:2 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.


Vote Pro.



  1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

RedAnarchist

Con

Honestly, what Pro is doing at this point is taking the vagueness of the topic of debate and trying to make it more specific. I have already shown that Islam only teaches Islam where it is taken literally, but apparently that is invalid because the topic of debate is whether or not the Qur'an and Hadith teach terrorism. Which is not the topic of debate. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith have hateful teachings, but Islam as a religion, and just to be sure that you do not reuse your previous argument: "re·li·gion rə'lijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (in other words, when I say religion I do not mean the religion as defined by the scripture, but the religion as defined by the vast majority of Islamic peoples), is not violent. It is like the case of Christianity, where even though there are countless violent passages, the large majority do not follow these teachings. The same can be said for Islam.

When you say that you are arguing that specific parts of Islam teach terrorism, then you have automatically conceded that Islam does not teach terrorism, as the topic of debate is specifically "Does Islam Teach Terrorism?" When I have proved that the religion as a whole does not, as is suggested by the vagueness of the title, you counter with the claim that you are stating that only specific parts of Islam teach terrorism. However, this was not your original statement. You cannot add to the specificity of the topic after it has been declared. Intentionally or unintentionally, the topic was too vague to begin with, and arguing over semantics now is useless.

On the topic of those passages you keep reciting: I am not going to rebut them. They are not an argument. One can not form an argument out of a quote without adding their own input, unless the quote itself is an argument.

Overall, this debate was semi-enjoyable, and I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 4
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
@RedAnarchist

I think you're misinterpreting my explanation for the removal. I did not say that "one cannot hold their own opinion on a topic prior to analyzing a debate." I was saying that individual opinion should not be incorporated as part of the reason for voting in a given direction. Everyone has their own biases, but in the process of evaluating and assessing the outcome of a debate, voters should make efforts to distance themselves from their own opinions.

Moreover, I wouldn't say that I've presented my opinion on the vote. There was clearly a lack of reasoning in this vote. I've also even quoted the section from this particular voter that insinuated the inclusion of bias in their decision.

But lastly, I should be clear, if the only issue was potential bias, the vote probably wouldn't have been removed. I included that chiefly as advice. The first reason for removal is the chief one guiding my decision on this particular vote.
Posted by RedAnarchist 11 months ago
RedAnarchist
@whiteflame On the topic of SatiricalAnarchist's vote:

Apparently, according to the provided reason for removal, one cannot hold their own opinion on a topic prior to analyzing a debate. If this is the case, then following and applying your own logic to this situation would suggest that you should not have deleted his vote because you are approaching this case with a rule set in mind, and therefore an opinion on the matter.

I think it's very clear that everyone else who has voted on this debate has come here with a preset opinion on the matter, and thus their votes should be deleted as well. Unless, of course, you use actual reasonable thought and figure out that humans have opinions and that's just dandy.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: HardRockHallelujah// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even bother to address what Pro had to say. Instead, con talked about everything except the debate topic. No direct refutation to the verses brought up by Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does not justify awarding conduct or sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheSatiricalAnarchist// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I had agreed with Red before the debate even began. But what pushed my decision even further was the clever usage of the definition of religion, the concept of faith, and how those things come into play with this topic at hand. WorldSkeptic seems to be assuming that all Muslims practice violent doings/are taught them by their scriptures, and is basing his knowledge of such religion off of some verses of said scriptures. His arguments are very narrow and very repetitive. Con made the argument that Islam is more popular in third world nations and this has a strong connection to radical Islam, the point was almost completely ignored by Pro, and many of Pro's arguments were essentially redundant and one-sided. Pro also practically forfeited the debate in his rebuttal of Round 2, to paraphrase: "I never said religion was based solely on scripture." Pro pretty much conceded to the contentions of Con. This debate was a nice one to follow, but Con did not have strong arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain allocation of conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The vote comes off as coming from a biased perspective, stating that his decision wasn't made by the debaters, but was simply "pushed...even further". Your background on the topic should factor as little as possible into the decision, and you shouldn't automatically be leaning one direction before the debate even starts.
************************************************************************
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
SatiricalAnarchist is a vote bomb ... hopefully the vote is removed (even if I agree that the resolution is false, I was never shown that it was).
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
I have to admit though, Anarchist's vote is fairly bias. Or perhaps, if not bias, simply not specific enough. The RFD doesn't explain the allocation of the sources point, it doesn't focus on Pro's arguments when allocating the arguments point, "His arguments are very narrow and very repetitive." "many of Pro's arguments were essentially redundant and one-sided" this is a very vague analysis of Pro's side. Also, the RFD doesn't properly explain the allocation of the spelling and grammar point.
Posted by RedAnarchist 1 year ago
RedAnarchist
@Wylted, he provided more than enough reason to vote in my favor. Also, just because he and I have "Anarchist" in our doesn't mean he's an alt account. What kind of fallacious reasoning is that? You have a w in your name, so that must mean that everyone in the entire website with a w in their name is an alt account of yours, right?
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I meant you're placing vote bombs in his favor.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
You both have anarchis names, joined at the exact same time, and the other one is clearly placing vote bombs in your favor.
Posted by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Uhm, how the hell am I an alt account? Because I 100% with Red that makes me an alt? Lmfao kid get out of here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
WorldSkepticRedAnarchistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially concedes by never attacking pro's quotes by saying that they are taken out of context ... Islam has a holy book and if that teaches terrorism then the religion itself does so as well. Pro gave numerous quotes from the Qu'ran which con never attacked. Con's attack about propaganda or whatever wasn't even topical ... I have literally no idea why it was included and it was never carried through the rest of the debate. The religion does teach violence (this is a y/n topic) is the topic - and pro showed it did by the quotes. Easily vote pro | if you have concerns, please inbox me them
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
WorldSkepticRedAnarchistTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got really off topic, by discussing whether the Quran teaches love and compassion or whether Muslims in general are terrorists. Obviously a religious holy book can have conflicting teachings, this isn't about whether there are conflicting teachings in the Koran, but whether it teaches terrorism at all. Pro points out specific cases where it does teach thag. Con could have responded by showing how those verses are about war or taken out of context, but instead, he conceded that the Quran teaches terrorism in certain parts, and though I disagree with pro and con on that, by conceding that the Quran teaches some terrorism, con essentially concedes the debate.