The Instigator
adilmuhammad
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DebaterGood
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

ISIL represents Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 90951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

adilmuhammad

Pro

MUSLIMS ONLY PLZZZ

Is ISIL really at the right path according to the shariah????

Does it really represent Islam??

I say yes..

The first round is acceptance

Second round is points

Third round rebuttal

Fourth round conclusions
DebaterGood

Con

salam Aleykoum. (Peace upon you.)
I accept this debate. ISIL does NOT represent Islam.
Debate Round No. 1
adilmuhammad

Pro

Waalaikum assalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.... (peace mercy & blessings be upon you too)

This is why I support ISIL:

1 It follows all Islamic teachings.

2 ALL the infidel (kafir) countries are currently fighting it.
Imam Shafi'i rahimahullah (May Allah have mercy on him) was asked: How do you know the right people in time of strife ?! He said: "Follow the arrows of the enemy and they will guide you to them."

3 All other nations claiming Islam do not follow/ do not completely follow the Shariah law

Waiting for your points....

Plz don't refute now...

Refuting for third round only
DebaterGood

Con

ISIL does not represent Islam, the religion of peace. (Islam translates to peace in Arabic). I am ashamed that ISIL does evil things to people and masquerades as a religious platform that tries to make Islam the primary religion of the world. I do not want to spark a religious war, but ISIS/ISIL has many contradictions that make me despise the terror group.

First of all, ISIL does not follow all of the Qur'an's words. I am no Sheik(Islamic religious preacher), but I know for a fact that Islam does not condone ANY killing except for a killing in act in defense of one's self or family. The Qur'an especially does not condone the killing of Muslims. 96% of all of ISIL's victims are Muslim. The Qur'an says that Allah (Arabic word for God) is the only entity that can inflict damage or pain to one who deserves it. The Qur'an does not allow anyone to play God for whenever and whatever they want. For example, the Jordanian pilot who was BURNED to death by ISIL was executed in a completely non humane way. Death/punishment by fire, the punishment reserved to use ONLY by Allah was used by ISIL. This is simply not was Islam stands for.

Secondly, ISIL has destroyed Masjids(Mosques). This is an act of hate towards Islam. If one BOMBS the place of religious worship of ANY religion, this cannot be labeled religious. I am pretty sure that the Qur'an does not say that blowing up a Mosque is acceptable. This is not just Islam. If a Jew or Christian, or Hindu, etc. harms the religious establishment of worship, it is fair to say that they are not religious, and that is not representative of whatever religion.

Thirdly, ISIL treats its prisoners-of-war very poorly, which is contradictory to Islam's teachings. For example, the Qur'an says that prisoners-of-war NEED to be treated nicely and with respect. There needs to be ample food and water, along with shelter provided to the prisoners according to Islam. ISIL tortures/rapes/abuses these prisoners, which is extremely sinful in Islam. This is another reason why ISIL is not representative of Islam at all.

Lastly, Islam claims a freedom of religion and a call for no oppression for non Muslims. ISIL kills those who do not convert to the sunni sect of Islam. There is a famous quote from the Qur'an that states(in paraphrase) "You have you're own religion, I have mine." While it would be ok for people to attempt to convert non-Muslims to Islam, it is against Islam to force people to follow your own religion.

In conclusion of my arguments made so far, ISIL is a false representation of Islam. A religion who's supposed "followers to the fullest"(What ISIL claims to be) do not kill its own members of faith, blow up its places of worship, or oppresses innocents who are stuck in the middle. I hope that my opponent would no longer support the path of ISIL, and would support the path of good Muslims who promote peace and work with people of all religions, backgrounds, and nationalities.

http://irusa.org...
http://content.time.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
adilmuhammad

Pro

Now's the time for refuting... I ask voters to vote not for thier own belief but by who really deserves this debate...

"(Islam translates to peace in Arabic" Thats wrong.. Salam سلام is peace.Islam إسلام is submission.

"I am ashamed that ISIL does evil things to people and masquerades as a religious platform that tries to make Islam the primary religion of the world.".. ISIL follows the Ahl azzimmah Islamic law... http://www.gamji.com... . Allah The Exalted says: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Tawbah:29 . If the Christians in the Islamic State pay jizyah, they are not harmed in ANY way. I am talking as a student in Class 8 in The religious Intitute, Doha, Qatar.

" I am no Sheik(Islamic religious preacher)" Then why are you debating if you dont have enough knowledge??

" but I know for a fact that Islam does not condone ANY killing except for a killing in act in defense of one's self or family" In the battle of Badr, The Prophet pbuh consulted His companions in The prisoners who were captured by the Muslims, Abu Bakr (Radiallahu anh) said : Let each one of them teach 10 Muslims reading and writing. Umar (Radiallahu anh) said: Kill them all. The Prophet (pbuh) took by the advice of Abu Bakr. Then, Allah Almighty reproached the Prophet (pbuh) :"It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land. Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." ِAl- Anfal: 67

"96% of all of ISIL's victims are Muslim" Woooooooooooooooooooooh!! This is WRONG EXCEPT IF you count Shiite people as Muslims. "There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr ( Allah be pleased with him), believe that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah be pleased with him) was an Imam... even if they believe in Allah, the last Prophet, and the perfection of the Quran "(Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453). So Siite people are not Muslims as by ALL ancient scholars.

"For example, the Jordanian pilot who was BURNED to death by ISIL was executed in a completely non humane way. Death/punishment by fire, the punishment reserved to use ONLY by Allah was used by ISIL. This is simply not was Islam stands for." OK. Burning in Islam is NOT allowed for anybody EXCEPT 'as a same punishment'. What is a same punishment? In Islam, Punishment are of two types: Law punishment, and same punishment. Law punishment is like the punishment for adultery, the punishment for theft..etc. Same punishment is mentioned in the verse: "And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers" Why didnt ISIL BURN the 'journalists', spies, soldiers,...etc. Because they didnt BURN. As for the Jordanian pilot, He burnt (incl. children) people to death by the fighter missiles..

"And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." ISIL ONLY DESTROYED SHIITE MOSQUES.

"Thirdly, ISIL treats its prisoners-of-war very poorly, which is contradictory to Islam's teachings. For example, the Qur'an says that prisoners-of-war NEED to be treated nicely and with respect. There needs to be ample food and water, along with shelter provided to the prisoners according to Islam. ISIL tortures/rapes/abuses these prisoners, which is extremely sinful in Islam. This is another reason why ISIL is not representative of Islam at all." ISIL does not treat them badly. It gives them food, water, and shelter. The only time they have NO mercy is while the execution. The Exalted says: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are FORCEFUL AGAINST THE DISBELIEVERS, MERCIFUL AMONG THEMSELVES." Fath: 29

"Lastly, Islam claims a freedom of religion and a call for no oppression for non Muslims. ISIL kills those who do not convert to the sunni sect of Islam. There is a famous quote from the Qur'an that states(in paraphrase) "You have you're own religion, I have mine." While it would be ok for people to attempt to convert non-Muslims to Islam, it is against Islam to force people to follow your own religion" ISIL DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE FOLLOW ITS OWN RELIGION.. IF YOU ARE FORM AHL AL KITAAB (THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, THE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS), OR EVEN OTHER RELIGIONS, AS LONG AS NOT MURTAD (COMING TO ISLAM AND THEN GOING BACK TO ANOTHER RELIGION), YOU ARE FREE, PROVIDED THAT YOU PAY THE JIZYAH Jizya or jizyah (Arabic: جزيةR06; 07;izyah IPA: [dA8;izja]; Ottoman Turkish: cizye) is a per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects"dhimmis"permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law.[1][2][3] Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya,[4] while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the insane, monks, hermits, slaves,[5][6][7][8][9] and musta'mins"non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands.[5][10] Dhimmis who chose to join military service were exempted from payment,[1][6][11][12][13] as were those who could not afford to pay.[6][14][15]
Jizya is mandated by the Quran and hadiths[16] Jizya rate was usually a fixed annual amount depending on the financial capability of the payer.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"followers to the fullest"(What ISIL claims to be)" We (on behalf of ISIL, As I have the same beleif as them) NEVER CALL OR BELIEVE OURSELVES TO BE THE FOLLOWERS TO THE FULLEST. We try our utmost to become that, but we dont claim we are.
DebaterGood

Con

I will now start my refutation of the rebuttal(s) made by my opponent. I will then start a rebuttal of points. First of all, for my opponent to rebut a comment made to help give a potential help to the viewer/voter, I view this as a semantical refutation that exists not only to exonerate the fallacious arguments made by Pro, but to exceed a boundary that was set between the two parties debating. Furthermore, the rebuttal does not explain why my contention was irrelevant to the topic of debate, but rather as a full blown fallacy, which is incorrect, and only solidifies my points. I have many examples of this.

1. "If the Christians in the Islamic State pay jizyah, they are not harmed in ANY way. I am talking as a student in Class 8 in The religious Institute, Doha, Qatar."
---This is simply irrelevant, for a starting point, as Pro has provided no explanation as to how that point made relevance to the resolution. Secondly, This is an example of a red herring argument, one that seems nice but doesn't provide true explanation. ISIL has taken financial rights away from Christians living in ISIL territory, meaning that according to ISIL's beliefs, Christians must be fought. The word "fight" does not mean to physically kill, but rather teach.

2.My opponent has said, "Then why are you debating if you don't have enough knowledge??" This is a use of semantics and is against the DDO code of conduct. The rules stated that Muslims debate, not Sheiks. As I may remember, my opponent is only a student, and this "rebuttal" has nothing to do at all with the argument at hand.

3."Then, Allah Almighty reproached the Prophet (pbuh) :"It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land." According to this argument made by my opponent, ISIL is doing everything wrong. Why do ISIL have prisoners of war before their caliphate is over? Besides, this is a prophet that is mentioned, not a group of civilians.

4. "96% of all of ISIL's victims are Muslim" Woooooooooooooooooooooh!! This is WRONG EXCEPT IF you count Shiite people as Muslims. Unfortunately for my opponent, the whole world says that Shiites are Muslims, including myself, who is Sunni. Just because there are political differences between both sects, both have submitted to Allah and follow the teachings of God and Muhammed. Besides, Shiite people are of book, which contradicts arguments made by my opponent.

5. As for the Jordanian pilot, He burnt (incl. children) people to death by the fighter missiles..
For the voters to know, this pilot has only conducted missions that involved the attack on ammunition bases, and had absolutely NO civilian targets. While I understand that under arbitrary circumstances people may have been hurt, no one was ON PURPOSE.

6. "ISIL ONLY DESTROYED SHIITE MOSQUES" Whether is was Shiite or Sunni, a Mosque is a Mosque, as is a Church or Temple. Politics between sects do not allow the worship of one's God to be disallowed, especially to one of book.

I will now start my rebuttal of contentions made by my opponent.

1. "It follows all Islamic teachings." As I have made clear previously, it does not. The point is another that provides no evidence or factual basis to its claim.

2. My opponent thinks that ALL of the infidel are fighting ISIL, making it representative of Islam. This is ridiculous, since there are non-religious people all over the world, who are fighting religion from government. Islam isn't the only religion that faces opposition. This point is also irrelevant, and should not be counted.

3.My opponent stated also that all other nations who claim to be Islamic oppose ISIL. This is by far, representative of a dirth in knowledge of foreign policy and relations which is clearly expressed vividly by my opponent. For example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E all have Islam as the national religion of the country. However, there are large populations of people who are not Muslim who come to the country and live daily lives while contributing to the construction of religious places, such as mosques, through taxation.

I extend my arguments previously made, and I await my opponent to make his conclusion.

Sources:
https://www.rt.com...
http://irusa.org......
http://content.time.com......
http://thinkprogress.org......
http://www.cnn.com......
Debate Round No. 3
adilmuhammad

Pro

THE TIME FOR CONCLUSIONS.
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.

My opponent in the last round stated that the word fight doesnot mean to physically kill, but teach. In Arabic, the word is qaatilu قاتلوا which means kill..

ISIL has NOT taken financial rights away from Christians. Imagine a life insurance paid for, annually not monthly, for less than $110.40. Not just life insurance, but after paying Jizyah if anybody harms you in any way or kills you even if Muslim,, the Islamic State (whether ISIL or not) is responsible for everything.

He also said that I didnt have the right to tell him he has not got enough knowledge. I DIDNT SAY THAT!! YOU DID. You mentioned:" I am no Sheik(Islamic religious preacher)" Yes, I said Muslims. It's as if I said students, surely a kindergarten student is NOT meant by that. I meant Muslims who have enough knowledge to debate in religion.. To give evidence to that, you have NOT quoted even ONCE from the Quran or Hadith.

"Besides, this is a prophet that is mentioned, not a group of civilians." Who do you follow? The Christ?? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh, right? So whatever the Prophet pbuh is ordered to do, IN SHARIAH, NOT IN PRIVATE OR SO THINGS, ALL MUSLIMS HAVE TO DO IT.

"For the voters to know, this pilot has only conducted missions that involved the attack on ammunition bases, and had absolutely NO civilian targets. While I understand that under arbitrary circumstances people may have been hurt, no one was ON PURPOSE." The Jordanian fighter Muaz Alkasasbah was burnt in front of THE RUBBLE OF A CIVILIAN BUILDING DESTROYED BY THE COALITION.

" Whether is was Shiite or Sunni, a Mosque is a Mosque, as is a Church or Temple. Politics between sects do not allow the worship of one's God to be disallowed, especially to one of book." Islam permits DESTROYING OF ALL SHIRK PLACES EXCEPT CHRISTIAN AND JEW CHURCHES.

"It follows all Islamic teachings." As I have made clear previously, it does not. The point is another that provides no evidence or factual basis to its claim." It does. NO other country, except Saudi Arabia stones married adulterers to death. NO other country, except Saudi Arabia chops the hands of the thieves off.... etc.. Here, many people would ask: Then, why don't you support Saudi Arabia? Ill answer because it helped the United States in Iraq In killing more than a million and half innocent people.

"There are large populations of people who are not Muslim who come to the country and live daily lives while contributing to the construction of religious places, such as mosques, through taxation." In the time of The Prophet pbuh, why didnt the Muslims let christians do whatever they can do now? why did they let them pay jizyah? So let it be clear: NO COUNTRY, NATION, OR EVEN ORGANISATION MAKES CHRISTIANS PAY JIZYAH, THAT IS STATED IN THE QURAN, IN HADITH, AND FROM THE QUOTINGS OF THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS. Besides, aren't there any Muslim builders? Engineers? Architects? Leave them and bring in Non-Muslims? With the fact that in Islam a Muslim should be considered better than a Non- Muslim, PROVIDED THAT THE NON-MUSLIM IS GETTING HIS RIGHTS.

I conclude, that ISIL follows ALL Islamic teachings, AND IT DOES REPRESENT ISLAM.

As this is a conclusion, I don't have any external sources.

I extend my arguments previously made, and I await my opponent to make his conclusion.

I ALSO REMIND MY RESPECTED OPPONENT TO TAKE THIS AS A DEBATE, NOT AS A FIGHT. (I'm not accusing, I'm just reminding.)

I STRONGLY ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER, NOT BY OPINION.

I AGAIN ASK VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER, NOT BY OPINION.

I therefore finish my turns of debate, and hope for the best for my opponent

Adil Muhammad Al- Maulawi,

Qatar
DebaterGood

Con

I will now clarify a few items before stating my conclusion.

First of all, there are many words and interpretations of fight in Arabic, and the dialects change. My opponent continues to find only arbitrary cases that not only help exemplify my points, but weaken the arguments made by my opponent himself.

Secondly, ISIL DOES oppress Christians in ISIL controlled territory. I extend the argument made earlier, stating that my opponent only provided red-herring cases that do not explain deep into the resolve of this debate.

Thirdly, the rules of this debate was 'Muslims only plzzz', according to my opponent. I did not quote the Qur'an directly because the sources I previously stated contain verses of the Qur'an in comparison to ISIL's ideology.

I will not even respond to the fourth argument made because this is only a case of semantics and does not represent the debate resolution whatsoever.

The Jordanian pilot was burned in front of a building destroyed by the coalition, according to my opponent. This would be a good point, except for the fact that the pilot was not part of the attack coalition on ISIL members, but on ammunition targets. This point made by my opposition is false.

The point made about Saudi Arabia was simply incongruous and again shows a lack of understanding of policy within international entities. It stands no basis for argument.

"So let it be clear: NO COUNTRY, NATION, OR EVEN ORGANISATION MAKES CHRISTIANS PAY JIZYAH, THAT IS STATED IN THE QURAN, IN HADITH, AND FROM THE QUOTINGS OF THE MUSLIM SCHOLARS. Besides, aren't there any Muslim builders? Engineers? Architects? Leave them and bring in Non-Muslims? With the fact that in Islam a Muslim should be considered better than a Non- Muslim, PROVIDED THAT THE NON-MUSLIM IS GETTING HIS RIGHTS."
-This again expresses a preference towards the discrimination of non-muslims in order to make Muslims more powerful. This is not a point that makes any legitimate case, as surely a country cannot disallow citizens and foreigners to enter the respective countries. My opponent represents a clear dirth in knowledge of foreign policy.

I will now conclude my argument.

ISIL is an entity that attempts to parade in the glory of violence, in the same way that the crusades have many years ago. ISIL commits heinous crimes against humanity, BOMBS Muslim places of worship, and calls for killing. Islam is a religion that does NOT condone violence in any way, as do other world religions. The terror group has murdered even Muslims, with the vast majority being killed over non-muslims. I make a pitch to voters, so they can fully understand the crux of this debate. As I assume the voters come from a diverse background of religions; Muslims,Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddists, etc. I would assume that if a terror group that kills, tortures and disgraces people claims to be of one of the voter's religion, I would assume that he/she would think that the group was ridiculous. I have explained why my arguments pertain to the debate at hand, while I hope that I have informed the voters about this very contentious issue. While I disagree with my opponent very strongly, I appreciate this debate, and I thank him for this debate. I wish the semantics were reduced, however this debate was not too hard for voters to follow. I extend all my arguments and sources.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mohamed-majid 9 months ago
mohamed-majid
ASSALAM ALAIKOUM.
about ISIS or ISIL. it is very clear that it is a fabrication of CIA and MOSAD . because the safest place in the middle east is ISRAEL ,
ISIS did not make any move against ISRAEL which is a true enmey to muslims and killing innocent PALESINIAN people.
yes most of ISIS 's victims are muslims. even the SHIAA should not be killed according to Islam
and (fight =قاتلوا=/= اقتلوا) (قاتلوا).
fighting the Disbellivers has conditions:
1. UNION OF ALL MUSLIMS IN ONE NATION
2.DOING THE 'DAWA'
3.IF PEOPLE DISBELLIVE IN THE MESSAGE THEY SHALL HAVE THE CHOICE OF :
FACING MUSLIMS IN THE BATTLEFEILD, PAYING THE' JEZIA'.

ISIS claims Jihad but they are killing innocent people kiddnaping and raping women.
Posted by adilmuhammad 9 months ago
adilmuhammad
It doesnt count.. I just wrote it for people visting this site for information..
Posted by DebaterGood 9 months ago
DebaterGood
Does posting an argument as a comment count? Because if it does, that is odd. I never heard rules against it, so that is fine with me.
Posted by adilmuhammad 9 months ago
adilmuhammad
In the eight Paragraph of round 2, I didnt want to write the verse. I accidently recopied it . I actually wanted to qoute: "Secondly, ISIL has destroyed Masjids(Mosques). This is an act of hate towards Islam. If one BOMBS the place of religious worship of ANY religion, this cannot be labeled religious. I am pretty sure that the Qur'an does not say that blowing up a Mosque is acceptable. This is not just Islam. If a Jew or Christian, or Hindu, etc. harms the religious establishment of worship, it is fair to say that they are not religious, and that is not representative of whatever religion."
Posted by adilmuhammad 9 months ago
adilmuhammad
oops ok im sorry bro... next time
Posted by Roukezian 9 months ago
Roukezian
Yes, I can quote from the Qur'an. I don't have to be Muslim. I'm a native Arabic speaker that read the Qur'an more than six times.
Posted by DebaterGood 9 months ago
DebaterGood
This debate shouldn't have to be just Muslim, if people want to debate without trolling, they should be able to debate.
Posted by CaptainScarlet 9 months ago
CaptainScarlet
The shame is, that arguments such as these were dismantled by John Lockes essays and treatises in the 17th century. Yet through demeagoguery they keep coming back. If you only want a religious discussion, it is just an hermetically sealed debate over who can interpret the wishes of an invisible, unknowable, non existent entity that despite their believed perfection, is never clear about their intentions.

We are reminded of how merciful this entity is on virtually every page. Yet it is somewhat ironic that his earthly representatives cannot tolerate any dissent for people who do not accept their very human and self serving interpretation of the confused supposed holy edicts. And with the subject of toleration at least the light of John Locke's 1667 essay can be shone in this dark corner of the human psyche...

Religion has had thousands of years and has advanced society by an inch at best, while those socities have ben brittle, fragile, prone to regress. Meanwhile, nations built on freedom, capitalism, science & technology, toleration have had hundreds of years and have changed societies in a positive way forever. They have so outstripped the previous thousands of years, that our lives only 50 years ago are unrecognizably backward compared to where they are now. Yet we still think that a first or seventh century conversation is required in the 21st century.
Posted by adilmuhammad 9 months ago
adilmuhammad
quote*
Posted by adilmuhammad 9 months ago
adilmuhammad
I mean u surely cannot vote from the Quraan? Or Hadith ( the Prophet pbuh's sayings)
No votes have been placed for this debate.