The Instigator
davebehrens
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

ISLAM is a religion of HATE

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 3 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,369 times Debate No: 48671
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

davebehrens

Pro

The subjugation, conversion, or murder of non-Muslims is specified in the Quran. Surah 9, which abrogates all older Surahs except the very short Surah 113, states:

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

I thank Pro for starting this interesting debate. I'm an agnostic who has studied Islam for six years, and I find myself convinced that Islam is not a religion of hate. Pro makes the positive claim that "Islam is a religion of hate", hence the burden of proof is on him. I simply have to disprove his arguments to win this debate.

REBUTTAL

Pro argues, "The subjugation, conversion, or murder of non-Muslims is specified in the Quran. Surah 9, which abrogates all older Surahs except the very short Surah 113..."

Rebuttal: Pro here is taking Surah 9 (The Surah of Repentance) out of context and claiming that it applies to all disbelievers. Truth of the matter, Surah 9 is simply verses revealed to Mohammad when the Arab Pagans of Mecca where having a war with Muslims.

Pro quotes Surah 9:5.

Rebuttal: According to the well-known Islamic scholar, Patricia Crone, this verse is only directed against a particular group accused of oath-breaking and aggression, pagan Arabs at Mohammad's time, and not all non-Muslims[1]. This is also emphasized in other parts of the academic work, The Encyopedia of Islam, which features various experts and academics on Islam[2]:

"Another verse which has caused much confusion is 9:5. This is the first Quranic verse mentioned in the fatwa of Usama bin Laden. It is also a verse which has been referred to by Reverend Franklin Graham in his comments about the “wicked, violent” nature of Islam. Verse 9:5 says, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the polytheists (mushrikun) wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]. Contrary to what may be thought from a literal reading of this translation, this verse is not a kind of carte blanche to attack any and all non-Muslim peoples. Here again the issue of historical context is so crucial for understanding. Verse 9:5 was revealed specifically in relation to the Muslims fighting the idolaters of Makkah. The Makkan idolaters are referred to in the Quran by the technical term “mushrikun” (sing. “mushrik”). This term comes from a three letter Arabic root “sh-r-k” which means “to associate” or “take a partner unto something,” so that the word mushrikun literally means, “those who take a partner [unto God],” that is to say, “polytheists” or “idolaters.”.... Given this context, this verse does not, in fact, show Islam to be a “wicked, violent” religion, as Franklin Graham would like us to believe, but shows that Islam gave to Muslims the right to defend themselves against those who would not let them worship God, a right, incidentally, which is protected by the United States Constitution."

As established above through academic works, the Qur'an talks about a specific war event and the words are directed against a particular group(pagans in Mecca at the time), and so the Qur'an is definitely not specifying how all Non-Muslims should be treated.

Pro's other citations were all from Surah 9, which means that they all were built on a false context.

...

Why the war was occurring and how were Muslims defending themselves?

1- The Meccan pagans had expelled Mohammad.

2- The Meccan pagans had breached their oaths and agreements.

3- The Meccan pagans had slaughtered some Muslims.

4- The Meccan pagans were persecuting the Muslim Minority in Mecca(e.g not allowing them to pray).

What standards did Mohammad follow in the war?

1- No killing of children, women, elderly people or monks. According to Prof. John Louis Esposito, an American professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington D.C, "From the earliest times, it was forbidden in Islam to kill non-combatant as well as women and children and monks and Rabbis, who were given the promise of immunity unless they took part in the fighting[3]."

2- War ends, if the other side asks for peace. Prof. John Louis Esposito continues, "Permission to fight the enemy is balanced by a strong mandate for making peace" according to Qur'anic verses.

...

SUMMARY

Pro has simply quote-minded verses out if their context, when their historic context and actual meaning disprove his argument. For him to establish that Islam is a religion of hate, he should give specific principles and doctrines in Islam that call for hate. So far this has not been done.

CITATIONS

[1] Patricia Crone, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, War article, p.456

[2] Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. p. 681. Found Online On: http://books.google.com.gh...

[3] "What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam," By John L. Esposito. P.120–122
Debate Round No. 1
davebehrens

Pro

All Surahs of the Quran, with the minor exception of Surah 113, are abrogated by Surah 9.

Islam, as fantastically revealed to an illiterate desert nomad, has practiced expansion by enforcing Surah 9, verses 5 and 29, which state:
1. Convert to Islam, OR
2. Pay a special tax in an unspecified and unlimited amount in person to a tax collector who must 'make the unbeliever feel subdued.' This means a literal slap in the face, genuflection to the tax collector, wearing of special clothing which identify the wearer as a non-Muslim to the Muslims in the population, in order that tax-payer can be'protected.' The question to the reader is. "Protected against what?" OR
3. Be summarily murdered.

The Islamic expansion into then Christian North Africa, Spain, France, the Caucasus, and the Balkans was done far from Mecca and into disparate societies using the same justification of Surah 9 verses 5 and 29. The societies in the cited societies and locations were not forbidding Islamic prayer. They did not attack Mecca or Medina, in present day Saudi Arabia; they are thousands of miles distant from the locus of Islam. The expansion of Islam was clearly not defensive; it was offensive.

Offensive war against 'hypocrites,' as the people of the cited countries we said to be by Surah 9 verse 73, is justified, is it not? Those people, in distant lands, who have not attacked you, who do not prevent you from your prayers are, by fantastical revelation to an illiterate, uneducated desert nomad, fully deserving to be slaughtered because they are 'hypocrites' for not believing in Islam, and no other reason. We are told that 'their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.' Surely those distant people are not truly human beings.

Don't want to go to kill distant hypocrites who have never harmed you? Surah 9 verses 38 and 39 warns that you, as a Muslim, will go to Hell if you don't, and therefore not enjoy Heaven with all the pretty boys with teeth like pearls.

Muslim apologists attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the final prescriptive Surah 9 of the Quran. Muslims have not been fooled. Muslims know what those verses REALLY mean. Their history has clearly manifested the REAL meaning of Surah 9. That manifestation was a trail of blood across North Africa and into both Eastern and Western Europe. The blood trail continues to this day to the railways of Spain and the United Kingdom, and to the office buildings full of 'hypocrites' in New York City in the USA.

If this blood trail does not prove HATRED, I do not know what could.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro has refused to satisfy his burden of proof by showing that Islam is a religion of hate, but instead dismissed the fact that he is taking a verse of context and repeated his original arguments, while ignoring my rebuttals, which usually leads to the loss of the conduct point and the points for arguments.

REBUTTAL

Pro repeats and argues, "Surah 9, verses 5 and 29, which state: 1. Convert to Islam, OR 2. Pay a special tax in an unspecified and unlimited amount in person to a tax collector who must 'make the unbeliever feel subdued.' This means a literal slap in the face, genuflection to the tax collector, wearing of special clothing which identify the wearer as a non-Muslim to the Muslims in the population, in order that tax-payer can be'protected[sic].' The question to the reader is. "Protected against what?" OR 3. Be summarily murdered."

Rebuttal: Pro again takes the verse out of context and ignores the word "Mushrikun" which stands for "Polytheists" and not "Non-Muslims," and specifically Polytheists at that time who were fighting against Muslims.

Patricia Crone, who is non-Muslim and highly well-known and proficient in Islamic academia, clearly explains: "Contrary to what may be thought from a literal reading of this translation, this verse is not a kind of carte blanche to attack any and all non-Muslim peoples. Here again the issue of historical context is so crucial for understanding. Verse 9:5 was revealed specifically in relation to the Muslims fighting the idolaters of Makkah."

Pro continues, "Muslim apologists attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the final prescriptive Surah 9 of the Quran. Muslims have not been fooled. Muslims know what those verses REALLY mean."

Rebuttal: This is nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. Where is Pro's proof that this is actually true? Pro has not offered one shred of evidence. Moreover, Patricia Crone is not a Muslim apologist, she is a Non-Muslim Scholar on Islamic studies.

Pro remarks, "That manifestation was a trail of blood across North Africa and into both Eastern and Western Europe. The blood trail continues to this day to the railways of Spain and the United Kingdom, and to the office buildings full of 'hypocrites' in New York City in the USA. If this blood trail does not prove HATRED, I do not know what could."

Rebuttal: The practice of some religious members doesn't necessarily reflect what the religion teaches. In other words, if some Christians were crusaders, that doesn't make Christianity a religion that encourages crusades and witch-hunting. The followers of a religion always have cultural practices which do not closely resemble what is taught in the religion, and when it comes to Islam, the same applies. To judge a religion by the practices of some of its members is logically fallacious.

Moreover, if this is the approach Pro wants to follow, Pro has to prove that the majority of devout Muslims are hateful, which he hasn't done so far, and which we have good reason to believe is false.

Muslims are stereotyped as hateful and intolerant as a form of racial discrimination

As we an see clearly in the study below, Muslim Americans are discriminated against more than any other group, which gives us a reason to doubt (if not dismiss) the general opinions we hear in the Media about Muslims and Islam.




SUMMARY

In order to establish that Islam is a religion of hate, Pro should give specific principles and doctrines in Islam that call for hate. So far this has not been done. Pro tried to say that devout Muslims are all hateful and aware that they're following a religion of hate, without giving any evidence for such an outrageous, conspiracy theory.
Debate Round No. 2
davebehrens

Pro

davebehrens forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

"It is finished."
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
ajeeb u are con man here lol
Posted by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
@Ozzyhead, christianity is not a religion of hate, hate is better than christianity, christianity is just an absurdity, dont insult hatredness.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
Ah yes, senseless bigots who take things out of context.

The same people who say Islam is a religion of hate have no problem with God's command to massacre the Amalekites, even the women and children, in the Old Testament, or the destruction of Sodom, which would've had infants.

Pigs will fly before people use double standards when they talk about religion.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
lol pro gives us all verses from chapter 9. it has a context... you dont need any scholar to confirm it just read from verse one to end and its will be clear what these verse are talking about actually.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
Christianity is a religion of hate as well
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
This is a debate of hate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
davebehrensNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
davebehrensNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON simply was better. Surah 9 of Quran is the most popular surah which missunderstood, PRO used it and CON solved this problem so well. I dont care grammar but I always vote it to the side which made better arguement, CON showed that muslims are being discriminated in the USA(which I knew even though at the time I didnt read this), this was also good arguing. spelling goes to CON
Vote Placed by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
davebehrensNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mostly makes unsubstantiated claims that are of little substance to proving the resolution. Con adequately explained and proved his case to negate the resolution. Also, pro forfeited the last round.