The Instigator
sidewinder
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sensanaty
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

ISIS and other terrorist organisations should not be identified as islamic terrorists

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: 2/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 70637
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

sidewinder

Pro

I have been to be quite frank disturb by the media attacks on the white house and President Obama's directive to not identify ISIS as a islamic terror group and I'm curious to debate this topic with anyone who believes that ISIS and other terrorist groups should be identified as islamic terrorists

Here is a few Definitions

Islam: the religion of Muslims, having the Koran as its sacred scripture and teaching that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet; Mohammedanism

terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

first round is for acceptance only
Sensanaty

Con

If a person or persons state that they are committing a crime in the name of a religion, even if it goes against the teachings of the religion, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be labelled as a religious terrorist organization.

This does NOT mean that all the followers of the religion agree with the statements or actions of the organizations, however it still is, by definition, a religious terrorist organisation.
Debate Round No. 1
sidewinder

Pro

As a quick note to con you may be new to this website but if it says first round is acceptance only it means that you are supposed to accept the debate in the first round.

1. Letting Terrorists define themselves
When we allow terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda to define itself as a religious group you give the group a certain legitimacy that these horrible groups do not deserve. It also, whether you believe it not, associates the religion of Islam with these groups even though their twisted ideologies do not truly reflect Islam. The vast majority of Muslims and the current religious leaders of different sects of Islam, both Shiite and Sunni, have condemned the murder of innocents

2. Texts of the krona are no longer used today
You might say that the Koran does support these awful practices but for every quote from the Koran that promotes violence i can match with a quote form the bible that promotes violence. For books reflect he time they were written and although some of the primary themes carry resonance in Christianity and Islam many have been left out. For instance In the bible it says in Exodus 21:10 - "If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish" which in translation supports polygamy, a practice that former Mormon communities practice in Utah and Arizona. This obviously isn't enforced by today's clergy so to say that this antiquated tradition reflects Christianity is no different than saying that ISIS's deluded version of Jihad represents Islam.

3. Islam has a extremely large number of branches
To call Islamic terrorists is a vast oversimplification of what the word Islam mean and ignores the thousand years of history that Islam has left behind as well as the fact that their are hundreds of different branches of Islam with the two largest being Shiite and Sunni. This religious branches have been feuding for almost 1000 years so to put them under a single branch of Islamic terrorist promotes a ignorance of a religion that is already misrepresented in the American public.

4. Promotion of stereotypes
Whether you do or not you think it happens when you associate a religion with terrorist organizations the lines become blurred with the pubic. This has led to unfavorable views of Muslims that range from the media complaining that Muslims don't apologize for their radicals or nonsensical reporting such as Muslim zones were the police can not go. Though many of these statements were often retracted this shows that the public has been mislead to believe that the religion of Islam is often equitable to the terrorist actions of radical branches of company who justify atrocities by saying they are doing it in the name of religion. The west can't claim to have done any different with the crusades, the 30 year war, KKK, and the Spanish Armada being a excellent example of political gain being sought with the excuse of religion being used to justify unwarranted expansion and violence or pursuit of a political agenda.

5. This type of treatment is not applied else where
Just because someone kills in the name of a religion does not mean that that religious deserves to have any association with radicals that have perverted their message. For instance if people started killing people in the name of the Red Cross would we identify them as Red Cross terrorists or would we have the common sense to realize that these terrorists do not represent their veins.

Rebuttals
1."If a person or persons state that they are committing a crime in the name of a religion, even if it goes against the teachings of the religion, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be labelled as a religious terrorist organization."
Because no religion deserves to be associated with the radicals of society that pervert their message for political, monetary, and societal gain.

2.This does NOT mean that all the followers of the religion agree with the statements or actions of the organizations, however it still is, by definition, a religious terrorist organisation.
Than by this logic all Christians should take ownership of the catholic sex scandals, abortion doctor killings, and the KKK. However, we won't do that because common sense dictates that no religion should hold ownership of those who pervert the messages of ones religion.

Conclusion
I hope that I have proved to my opponent and the viewers of the site that no religion deserves to be associated with the radical fringes of their religion.
http://www.gallup.com...
Sensanaty

Con

Sensanaty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
sidewinder

Pro

I extend my arrguments
Sensanaty

Con

Sensanaty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
sidewinder

Pro

I extend my arrguments
Sensanaty

Con

Sensanaty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
sidewinder

Pro

sidewinder forfeited this round.
Sensanaty

Con

Sensanaty forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Camaroni1000 1 year ago
Camaroni1000
The terror organization doesn't speak for Islam but the motives behind it are what they believe to be benefits for Islam
Posted by AyaKhalifa 1 year ago
AyaKhalifa
Sensanaty, if the motivation behind their actions is their views on Islam, it doesn't mean that Islam promotes terrorism, it simply means that they either misinterpreted the Qur'an or that they're using it as an excuse for their actions, and the way they look at Islam or view Islam does not define Islam.
Posted by HarshaKrishnakumar 1 year ago
HarshaKrishnakumar
I strongly believe that they are NOT holding themselves to the tenements of Islam, sidewinder. ISIS is making up excuses by using the Koran as an excuse for their violent attacks on innocent people. Yes it might say in the Koran that they should wage war if their religion is threatened but this text really hasn't been modified by all means to modern times. And waging war does NOT mean that they should be attacking innocent civilians that had nothing to do with Islam in the first place. Yes you should defend your religion if people were making false accusations on your heritage/culture/religion but it must never be taken seriously.
Posted by sidewinder 1 year ago
sidewinder
Two spelling corrections for part two I mean koran not krona and the last word of part 5 I meant views not veins
Posted by Sensanaty 1 year ago
Sensanaty
Whether or not they hold themselves to the teachings of the Qur'an or not is not wholly relevant. Maybe you could say that they are not true Muslims, and not true believers of Islam, however if the motivation behind their actions is their own view on Islam, the Qur'an and so on and so forth, then how is it not a religious organization?

Plus if the religion they recognize as the basis for their actions happens to be Islam, how is it not a Islamic terrorist organization?
Posted by sidewinder 1 year ago
sidewinder
HarshaKrishnakumar I am not disputing whether ISIS is a terrorist organisation i am disputing that it holds itself to the tenements of Islam.
Posted by HarshaKrishnakumar 1 year ago
HarshaKrishnakumar
They are shaming all people of faith, including non-radicalized Muslims. Furthermore, they are causing terror within the regions they target so why would they not be considered terrorists? They endanger many people's lives and protect only their militants. That's what I call a terrorist.
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
I would have accepted this so fast
No votes have been placed for this debate.