The Instigator
Mr_Eno_Otu
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Does Islam sanction muder over words against Islam

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...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 514 times Debate No: 75399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Mr_Eno_Otu

Pro

I accept your challenge Mr. "Yassine."

As demonstrated by the Iranian "death fatwa" on Mr. Salman Rushdie for nothing but his words against Islam (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk...,) Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam's AGREEMENT with the MURDER of Malcolm X for nothing but his words against their faith (see https://www.youtube.com... ,) and the recent Paris & Texas KILLINGS over nothing but words against Islam, some Muslims DO believe in MURDERING others over words against their faith. And the Qur'an (the Muslims Scriptures) sanctions such behavior under Qur'an 5:33:

"The punishment of those
Who wage war against Allah
And His Messenger, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land
Is: EXECUTION, or crucifixion,
Or the cutting off of hands
And feet from opposite sides,
Or exile from the land:
That is their disgrace
In this world, and
A heavy punishment is theirs
In the Hereafter;"
Yassine

Con

I thank Pro for instigating the debate, & I accept his challenge.


Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr_Eno_Otu

Pro

My argument was in the first post
Yassine

Con

- Due to busy schedule, I'll postpone my argument to next round, thus giving Pro a chance to expand more on his argument, so that I may reconstruct my rebuttal in a more comprehensive way.

Thans, back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr_Eno_Otu

Pro

Mr_Eno_Otu forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

- Pro seems to have forfeited, I'll just wait for him next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr_Eno_Otu

Pro

Mr_Eno_Otu forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

- Another forfeit from Pro! I'll conclude next round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mr_Eno_Otu

Pro

Mr_Eno_Otu forfeited this round.
Yassine

Con

Preface:


- Pro has the burden of proof to show “that Islam sanction muder over words against Islam”.



Rebuttals:



As demonstrated by the Iranian "death fatwa" on Mr. Salman Rushdie for nothing but his words against Islam.

- This says nothing about what Islam sanctions or doesn’t. If Iran hoped to sentence Rushdie to death, another 50 muslim state didn’t. This is a non sequitur.



Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam's AGREEMENT with the MURDER of Malcolm X for nothing but his words against their faith.

- The Nation of Islam had then little to do with the religion that is Islam, they called their leader Messenger of God, which goes against the very foundational belief in Islam, that is: There if no god but God, & Muhammad is his FINAL Messenger.

- Also, the only genuine true here is Malcolm X himself, who performed the Hajj (pilgrimage) [1], thus, he couldn’t possibly be speaking against Islam, for that would contradict the fact that he is muslim! The enemies of Islam killed him, which was tragic, not the muslims.



and the recent Paris & Texas KILLINGS over nothing but words against Islam, some Muslims DO believe in MURDERING others over words against their faith.

- There are 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide, a number of them are killers, thieves, rapists, terrorists. . . well, bad guys. It’s not like Muslims are a species of their own! They are human beings, like the rest. What does that have to do with the religion itself??? Besides, Muslims across the World are getting tired of apologising for acts done by some random individuals in the name of their religion.



And the Qur'an (the Muslims Scriptures) sanctions such behavior under Qur'an 5:33:

"The punishment of those

Who wage war against Allah

And His Messenger, and strive

With might and main

For mischief through the land

Is: EXECUTION, or crucifixion,

Or the cutting off of hands

And feet from opposite sides,

Or exile from the land:

That is their disgrace

In this world, and

A heavy punishment is theirs

In the Hereafter;"

- Context: the verse was revealed concerning a group of people who came to the Prophet pretending to be muslim & asked to stay with him. They got sick, so he sent them to drink some of the milk & piss of the camels stored in the Treasury. When they felt healthy, they killed the shepherds, stole the camels & fled [2], hence the “strive with might and main for mischief through the land” part.

=> The verse designate those that wage war against Allah & His Messenger, which is an allegory for disobeying & going against the commands of Allah & His Messenger. To “wage war” against God in the literal sense is literary meaningless, the word used here is “Yuharibuna”, which means: “they commit the act of Haraba”. Thus, the verse does not remotely concern non-Muslims, or those that speak against Islam! It concerns those who commit Haraba, defined by Imam Malik (founder of the Maliki School of Thought) as: “those who take arms against the people to plunder their wealth without prior war or enmity” [2].



Conclusion:


- Pro has failed in establishing that Islam “sanctions murder over words against Islam”, he merely cited the acts of some muslims & went unto concluding on their religions thereafter. That’s like saying, Physics is bad because physicists do bad things. Pro had to do better than that.


- The one verse Pro brings up is not even remotely related to “words against Islam”!

- In short, we have yet to see an argument advanced by Pro, which supports his resolution, yet he managed to forfeited practically the entire debate.


=> Vote Con.



Sources:


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Mr_Eno_OtuYassineTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A clear win for Con. Con successfully refuted Pro's first argument, which argues that *some* Muslims murder over anti-Islam words and thus Islam sanctions murder over anti-Islam words, by pointing out that these were only examples of where Muslims sanctioned it - not where Islam sanctioned it. The Quran quote was successfully refuted by Con, who showed that in the context, the Quran only sought to kill the murderers and robbers.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 2 years ago
chrisjachimiak
Mr_Eno_OtuYassineTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar: Pro. I counted four spelling mistakes in Con's case. Conducts: Tied. Con didn't post his case until the final round, whereas pro posted his in the first. Forfeitures even out the conduct listed above. Convincing arguments: Con. Considering pro only had one "entry" from the Qur'an. Con proved this entry wrong, so points to con. Reliable Sources: Tied. Pro had no sources, whereas Con's sources were Wikipedia and an Arabic Website... Neither of which are reliable.