The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YassineB
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is the Quran a peaceful book

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 2 votes the winner is...
YassineB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,380 times Debate No: 67167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Leo.Messi

Con

The Quran is not a peaceful book

1st round-acceptance
2nd round-rebuttals and arguments
3rd round-rebuttals and conclusion
YassineB

Pro

Hello! I guess this will be my first Debate. :)
Pleased to have made your acquaintance. I am too familiar with the rules of Debate in DDO yet, so be sure to point out any tips that might help, thanks ;).

I accept you challenge.:
- I will argue that the Qur'an is a Peaceful Book.
- Peaceful Book in the sense that it sincerely presents the lesser of two evils, or the better of two goods. & not in the sense that it is a Pacifist Book.
Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Con

Pleased to have met you as well,
Now, the debate.

The Quran is a violent book.
Here are some passages i will point out.

1)VIOLENT PASSAGES

Quran (2:216) "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (48:29) "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

from these few out of the many more violent verses, we can see that the Quran is NOT AT ALL a peaceful book.
But, rather it is violent and unforgiving.

I look forward to your arguments.
YassineB

Pro

I am back, thanks for waiting.

I shall first refute your arguments & argue against your position. & then, next round I shall establish my position & thereafter my conclusion.



First


- Concluding that the Qur’an is a violent book based on the mere fact that it contains passages that sanction ‘violence’ is not accurate.

=> Or else, similarly, the US Constitution by protecting the right of the individual to bear arms sanctions violence, regardless if this violence is justifiable or not, & therefore, according to your line of reasoning, the US Constitution is violent. The same thing can be said about every Law of every nation of every time, if that’s the case, then what’s the point of our whole debate to begin with.



Second

- Matters are to be judged in light of their objectives.

> If peace is good, it certainly isn’t the greatest good. & so, if peace is confronted with a greater good, then sacrificing temporarily the former to ensure the latter is not just the right thing to do, but also the peaceful thing to do, for the purpose is so great that giving up outer peace in the short-term will bring inner peace in the long-term.

(+) Eg. a people striving for their independence. Seeing that Freedom, Independence, Dignity are in this case a greater cause than peace & security, the really peaceful solution is giving up the current unfree & undignified peace to accomplish a free & honourable peace thereafter.

Similarly, If violence is evil, it certainly isn’t the worst of evils, & thus in a situation where violence is confronted with a greater evil, opting for lesser evil of the two (that is violence) is the more peaceful thing to do. Idem if violence was the superior evil of the two.

=> Conclusion, if the objective of a matter or a decree is the sincere choice of the lesser of two evils, or of the greater of two goods, then that matter is peaceful. Or else, of what worth is peace if it doesn’t bring more good & less harm!



Third

1)- The Qur’an is a book revealed in Arabic to the Arabs of the 7th century (during the time of the Prophet).

2)- The Qur’an states: “We have sent down unto you the Message [the Revelation that is the Qur’an]; that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.”

3)- The Interpretation of Scripture is a form of reasoning (Interpretative Reasoning) that requires knowledge & expertise.

4)- In the Islamic Tradition, as in any other Tradition or Knowledge, there is a system of Authority one is required to be part of if one wishes for his Opinions to be Authoritative & not discarded.

1)- => Properly understanding the Qur’an will definitely require the mastery of Classical Arabic (of the Qur’an), & will also require knowing the circumstances & conditions that preceded every revelation in the Qur’an, that is to say, knowing the Biography of the Prophet.

2)- => Properly understanding the meanings of the verses in the Qur’an requires knowing what the one who was given the authority to explain it (the Prophet) had to say about them. That is to say, knowing the Prophetic Tradition: the Corpus of Hadith (which amounts to ~103,000 accounts).

3)- => Properly interpreting the verses of the Qur’an requires knowing the Sciences of the Qur’an & Methodology of Interpretation. That is to say studying these sciences:

http://www.docdroid.net...

4)- => Even if one masters all these sciences, & Arabic, & Hadith, if one is not a Licensed Muslim Scholar, one’s opinion or interpretation is simply irrelevant & discarded.

=> Conclusion: To make an authoritative sound judgement on a Subject, you have to know the Subject, know how to make sound judgement on the Subject (in this case, you have to know the Methodology of Interpretation), & finally you must have the required authority to make such judgement.

=> Therefore, since you - or your source - possess no such authority to be interpreting the Qur’an, & no knowledge of the Qur’an or Classical Arabic or the Prophetic Tradition, I am forced to discard everything you have to say about the Qur’an by principal, as your - or your source’s - opinions are simply false & irrelevant to the Islamic Tradition.

=> Furthermore:

> You used an unauthentic source (more specifically an untrustworthy source).

> Your source uses an english translation of the Qur’an & claim ‘proper’ interpretations!

> Your source cut verses compltely out of context!



Fourth,

I shall pick one of your samples & falsify it, & extrapolate on the rest.

Quran (2:216): "Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it.

> The first part: "Fighting is prescribed for you

- The verse at first glance seems general ; the present question is thus: what sort of fighting is the verse suggesting? & against whom is fighting prescribed?

- The prescription of fighting can not be unconditional, or else what will stop the muslims from fighting the Prophet himself if indeed fighting was against all! => It’s thus restricted.

- Furthermore, it doesn’t say fight the unbelievers, or fight any particular party for that matter. => allocating the insinuation of fighting the unbelievers to the verse is a false inference.

- For that we are going to inspect the context, & check if there are other verses that can actually restrict this general one.

1)- The verse that preceded this one says:

Or do you think that you will enter Paradise while such [trial] has not yet come to you as came to those who passed on before you? They were touched by poverty and hardship and were shaken until [even their] messenger and those who believed with him said,"When is the help of Allah ?" Unquestionably, the help of Allah is near.” (2:214)

=> This verse was revealed at the battle of the Trench (Year 5: when muslims in Medina were under siege for three weeks) asking them - the muslims - to be patient, victory is near, & then came the following verse saying: "Fighting is prescribed for you” to fight in self defence in such dire circumstances ; hence it follows with “and you dislike it”.

2)- The verse came as a confirmation of a previously revealed verse (Year 1: when the muslims were tortured, their properties robbed & their families were evicted from their homes) that sanctioned fighting as self-defence:

- “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;
(They are) those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah".” (22:39-40)

=> Permission to fight is granted as a resolution against the persecution & slaughter the muslims suffered from, the kind of permission that had not been granted yet.

3)- The verse also came as an antecedent of the verse revealed Year 6 (when the muslims went to preform the pilgrimage in Mecca, & the Meccans kidnapped ‘Uthman messenger of the Prophet to Q’uraish, & raised arms to fight Muhammad), that sanctioned fighting only in the context of self defence:

- “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you [1] but do not transgress [2]. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors [3].
And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you [4], for persecution is worse than slaughter. but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque [5], unless they (first) fight you there [6]; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful
[7].
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression [8], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility [9] except to those who practise oppression [10].” (2:190-193)

=> It is clear from both verses that the permission to fight was granted in the strict context of self defence, & this constrained permission was affirmed & confirmed again & again, from [1] through [10].

4)- To exhibit the opposite: the fact that non-militants are not to be fought, the Qur’an says:

- “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.
Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (60:8-9).

=> The distinction here is clear, as the verse unequivocally states: "deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you".

5)- While sanctioning constrained self-defence, the Qur’an is explicit & firm on the command to fight:

- “kill those who fight you wherever you overtake them”

> The Prophet said: "Do not wish to face the enemy, but when you face the enemy, be patient (and brave)” [ ^Bukhari #3026 ]

> “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you endure patiently - verily it is better for the patient” (16:126)

> The Prophet - when going to battle - said: “Don’t kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, bring no harm to the trees, nor mutilate a dead body or an enemy’s flock…” [ ^Bayhaq’i #17594 ]

=> The Qur’an & Hadith are encouraging the quality of bravery & perseverance in battle, but at same time mercy & forgiveness.



==>> Conclusion, from point 1) through 5) I demonstrated that, at each instance, the Qur’an picks the greater of two goods, or the lesser of two evil. Thus, & as per my established definition of Peaceful, I shall extrapolate my findings, & deduce that so far the Qur’an is Peaceful.
Debate Round No. 2
Leo.Messi

Con

I have limited time, so I will make this argument a bit short,
You forgot to source your arguments, but nevertheless I will continue:
Rebuttals: "Or else, similarly, the US Constitution by protecting the right of the individual to bear arms sanctions violence, regardless if this violence is justifiable or not, & therefore, according to your line of reasoning, the US Constitution is violent. " The US constitution, by protecting the individual right to bear arms, protects the rights of the people. It does not promote violence. The Quran says ""Fighting is prescribed for you..." which encourages violence, while the constitution states all people have a right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not a call to war like many passages in the Quran-it is for your own protection and enjoyment (hunting animals). However it does have legal bounds (no murder, injury, unless defending yourself etc.). The Quran's verses have no legal bounds, you are encouraged to kill:
"And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them"
"but if they fight you, slay them."

while the constitution and the law of the land makes murder illegal. Not quite sure why you compared the constitution with the Quran, because they are not at all like each other.


"The Prophet said: "Do not wish to face the enemy, but when you face the enemy, be patient (and brave)” [ ^Bukhari #3026 ]"
While this in one sense may be a certain side of Mohammed (I assume that is who you mean by "the prophet"), however he had a much more violent nature later in life:

"Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam."

How is the Quran at all peaceful? It talks of slaughter, pillage, and "honor killings".
I am not at all sure that anyone can come to the conclusion that the Quran is a peaceful book.
Sorry for a limited argument, but I wish you good luck!
YassineB

Pro

My opponent fails to realise the objective of the Analogy I made (by comparing the Qur’an & the US Constitution from the aspect that they both contain passages that sanction violence), & that is to elucidate that a the mere fact of containing passages that sanction violence (regardless if the violence is justified or not) does not imply either the Qur’an or the Constitution are violent.

=> Therefore, his conclusion is invalid.

My opponent fails to bring proof to link the following verse in the Qur’an: “Fighting is prescribed for you” to his false & unjustified interpretation of it: “encouraged to Kill”. Whereas, “Fighting” in the verse is not specified & could thus mean anything or be against anything:

> fighting with pillows, with sticks, with bear hands, with brains, with weapons…

> fighting frogs, weather, believers, unbelievers, those who fight you…

=> Therefore, his argument is void.

- " The right to bear arms is not a call to war like many passages in the Quran-it is for your own protection and enjoyment (hunting animals). "

> My opponent claims the Qur’an calls for War based on inauthentic sources & non-authoritative false inadmissible interpretations of verses in the Qur’an.

=> Therefore, his claim is irrelevant to the Islamic Tradition.

- " The right to bear arms is not a call to war like many passages in the Quran-it is for your own protection and enjoyment (hunting animals). However it does have legal bounds (no murder, injury, unless defending yourself etc.). The Quran's verses have no legal bounds, you are encouraged to kill:
"And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them"
"but if they fight you, slay them."
while the constitution and the law of the land makes murder illegal. "

> My opponent believes -without evidence- that there are no legal bounds concerning “Fighting” in Islamic Law!

> Plus, he contradicts himself in affirming that:
* Manslaughter subsequent to bearing arms to defending oneself is not an encouragement to kill.
* Killing subsequent to defending oneself from militant attackers during War is an encouragement to kill!

> Even more so, he makes the false & unjustified insinuation that murder is legal in Islamic Law.

=> Therefore, his irrational unjustified beliefs can not be taken seriously, & are to be rejected.

"Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam."

My opponent brings an inexistent fabricated quote falsely attributed to Muhammad from an inauthentic dubious source to support his claim.

=> Therefore, his conclusion is false.



My Case:



1)— Every single Aya & Hadith sanctioning -Military- Jihad is restricted to the position of self-defence in War < All of them. Let's see about the ones my opponent brough up:

Quran (8:12) -

- Context:

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip”.” (8:9-12)

> The verse was revealed about the battle of Badr (muslims: 314, meccans: ~1,000) where (as the verse states) Allah promises to send down angels to aid the muslims & reveals to the angles that He will instil fear in the hearts of the enemy while they are to aid the believers in battle by striking the enemy.

> The verse was specifically & exclusively addressed to angels in the battle of Badr. Also, striking fear in the hearts of the enemy is the most used & useful tactic of War.

=> Clearly, the verse is restricted in the context of the battlefield.

Quran (9:14)

- Context:

This verse was revealed in a series of verses going from (9:1) through (9:15) concerning the affair where Q’uraysh violated the Covenant they signed with Muhammad by killing clan members under his protection, & thus the Qur’an sanctions fighting the Pagans that declared war on Muhammad, but only after the sacred months have past:

"So travel freely [O pagans] throughout the land [during] four month;
["]
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the pagans wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush" (9:2+5)

(+) According to Tafsir (Exegesis of the Qur'an, made by Authoritative Exegetists) :

Kill > Kill the invaders of the land of muslims, who are in war with muslims.

Capture > Capture the intruders in the land of muslims who are in war with muslims.

Besiege > Stop - before entering the land of muslims - those who are in war with muslims.

Sit in wait > Guard your borders against those who are in war with muslims.

=> & then, in the same line of verses, the Qur’an comes again to enforce the spirit of self defence (to make sure that non-militant parties shouldn't get mistakenly involved in the conflict) & says:

"Those of the Pagans with whom you have a treaty, and who have not failed you, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves the righteous. ["]
If one amongst the Pagans asks you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure" (9:4+6)

=> Clearly, the verse is applicable as a measure of constrained self-defence in times of war.

Qur’an (48:29)

- Context:

The verse was revealed about the incident of Hudaybiya (Year 6: when the muslims went to preform the pilgrimage in Mecca, & the Meccans kidnapped ‘Uthman messenger of the Prophet to Q’uraish & raised arms to fight Muhammad). So it concerns the Companions that swore allegiance to Muhammad to fight by his side against Q’uraish.

=> Clearly, the verse is meant for the context of war.

Qur’an (61:4)

Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly.”

=> Clearly the verse is speaking of armies in the battlefield. It, most definitely, does not a call to war.

Qur’an (61:5)

- Context:

And when Moses said to his people, "O my people, why do you harm me while you certainly know that I am the messenger of Allah to you?” […]
And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad."
[…]
It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.

- The same Context can be seen in this other verse speaking in the same sense about Jesus:

[Remember] when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.” (3:55)

- The Qur'an describes itself as a continuation of all past Revelations of God’s Religion that is Islam:

> "To you We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and as a criterion over it" (5:48)

- The Qur'an also states that God sent Prophets to all past nations:

> "And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying]: "Worship Allah and avoid false gods." (16:36)

> "And there was no nation but that there had passed within it a warner a messenger)". (35:34)

> "Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many Were the messenger that passed away before him." (3:144)

> "Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth." (5:75)

> Muhammad said: " [Prophets] are a hundred and twenty four thousands, among them three hundred and fifteen Messengers"

=> The verse speaks generally about the Religion of God on earth, it has no relation whatsoever with war or killing.


2)— Here is the real peaceful spirit of the Qur'an & the Hadith:

- “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

- “And say, "The truth is from your Lord”, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve.” (18:29)

- “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most pious of you.” (49:13)

- Muhammad said: “O! people! your Lord is one and your ancestor is one. there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety.” [^Ahmad #22871]

- Muhammad said: “Humans are equal, like a set of a tooth-comb, there is no superiority of the arabs among them over the non-arabs, or the whites among them over the blacks except by piety” [^al-Mustadrak #75-6]

- Ali (cousin & son in law to the Prophet, 4th Caliph) said: “People are of two types, they are either your brothers in Religion or your equals in Humanity

- "whoever kills a soul - unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." (5:32)

- "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity." (60:8)

- Muhammad said: “The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” [^at-Tarmidhi #1429]

- Muhammad never forced anyone to convert to Islam in his life.

- He also never initiated a War: all the 29 campaigns he led, from which 9 turned into battles (& 20 into treaties or truces), were defensive campaigns.


Sources:
* http://library.islamweb.net...
* http://ia902702.us.archive.org...;

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by AdeelQayum 1 year ago
AdeelQayum
I know I may be late to this debate, but I noticed that Pro's source is "thereligionofpeace.com," so I just wanted to point out to anyone who comes across this debate, like I did, that that website is a "hate-website" and promotes hostility towards Islam and Muslims and takes the most violent and illiogical interpretation of the Quran. So, just like YassineB stated in the debate, there are a multitude of interpretations and it's just about which one you look at. Thank you!
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
@Leo.Messi
- Kudos to you too ;) .
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
An excellent job on the debate my friend.
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
Also:
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
=> No. Such. Thing. Exists. <<< They lied to you.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Oh, forgot my source...
well, here you go
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Posted by CooCooClockofDoom 2 years ago
CooCooClockofDoom
I am saying that the Quran is a peaceful book if that is the way you interpret it. People have many different ways of determining what something stands for. Some people choose to view it as a peaceful text, while some people choose to view it as a way to justify senseless killing. Some people also try and use it to gain foothold over others, claiming that their book is correct while the others is blasphemy. In reality, no religious text is more peaceful than another, it is just the people who interpret it in ways that seem wrong to others that gives it a negative connotation.
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
No religious book is peaceful. That's just how they are. It's hypocritical to stand behind one book and condemn another book even though it's just as bad. The bible talks about lots of fighting and war. That's a bottom line.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Would you say the Bible is a peaceful book?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
Leo.MessiYassineBTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Definately a good debate, what refutes were offered by Pro were sound regarding context and application at the time, however I am not a fan in any situation in which the only people allowed to opine about religous texts are those whom must in some way have to earn license. The same refute could be asked of Pro to for credence of refute, but that was dropped.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 2 years ago
Skepsikyma
Leo.MessiYassineBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were impeccably sourced and well laid out. They addressed Con's examples thoroughly, while Con failed to adequately counter any of Pro's arguments. Con only used one general source, to a decidedly non-scholarly website.