The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Islam Is A religion of Peace

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 79692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




As the Starter of this Debate, I would Like all participants to not serve up halfbaked verses and Ideas.
No abusive Language
Respect for the Opponent
and please please Use certified sources of Sunni Islam as Sunni is the majority sect of Islam, and thus my decision to stick with their sources.

Now for the debate:

Many people around me have recently been telling me that islam is not the religion of peace,but my thinking has been something completely different from that. To spread my views and find a healthy debate, I came to this site. The User I have challenged was selected from a debate with Mujtaba who failed to defend his views against DeltaMed. As it seems delta had a great debate,but his view of Quran as literal words is wrong. The Quran is a book of god whose meaning should be taken with Tafsir, Asbab-e Nazool and the wordings i.e the Context of the verses, the reasons of revelation and the Arabic grammar and it's different rules of deriving words meanings. For example the meaning of 'Al-Hamdu' and 'Al-Hmdu' are different (opposite) although in the Arabic sense of way,only a small letter changed. For example See and Sea are two different words with two different meanings.

Some Verses given by the debater in the above mentioned debate were either given half or were not given with their reasons and time of revelation. There was a verse revealed in battle that was to boost muslim moral but some miscreants due to the lack of their understanding and knowledge of islam use them generally on the muslims today while it was meant for the specific battle only. For example ,Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. - Quran 2:216, is stated as the proof of islam being violent. WELL NO. Warfare is not the word used, Jihad is. And Jihad is of many types i.e The lesser and bigger Jihad. The lesser Jihad is the warfare for the sake of allah while the bigger jihad is of the constant struggle against one's internal self. many other forms of jihad are also present like giving alms to the poor, living according to Sunnah, gaining knowledge as Islam commands (that would mean if you wake up in the morning for going to school, it would also be a part of your Jihad for gaining Knowledge).
now come to the part where I stop defending and give out my points for supporting the idea. First of all, Islam never legalized the killings of innocent people. To the best of my understanding, all of the verses that speak of killing kaafirs are in a context of warfare--in this particular case, a war that the unbelievers started. The usual course of action when dealing with an unbeliever would be, so long as that unbeliever did not threaten to attack or attack Muslims, the Muslims would not attack the unbeliever: so long as the unbeliever did not berate Muslims, the Muslims would not berate unbelievers. islam says do not fight against non believers unless they turn you out of your homes and force convert you on your religion. Allah does not forbid you as regards those who did not fight you on account of faith, and did not expel you from your homes, that you do good to them, and deal justly with them. Surely Allah loves those who maintain justice. (8) Allah forbids you only about those who fought you on account of faith, and expelled you from your homes, and helped (others) in expelling you, that you have friendship with them. Those who develop friendship with them are the wrongdoers. (Surah 60) the forbidance is of friendship in these verses.

Now I would like the opponent to write a short and precise answer with all the context, Reasons of revelation and proper meanings of the words of any verses he gives. He may differ from my verses and give reasons for his different views. Please refrain from using half verses. It would be same to say ' A man was shot by a gaurd' and not saying that ' the man was a thief running away'. this way the gaurd looks guilty. As I said before and is my stance, Think of Islam and ISIS like this. The doctor gave the patient a prescription but the patient did not follow it, causing his death or more illness. Due to this the doctor is blamed by a certain group of people due to their lack of knowledge and lack of their capacity for understanding. Rather it is the patient at fault.


I must accept-- I am graced that Mahmedkpk has challenged me to this debate. Please do not take my acceptance as a sign that I personally think Islam is violent. In fact, outside of DDO, I believe Islam is peaceful. However, just like a good swordsman, a good debater must be able to argue both sides of the topic.

I also accept to the majority of your prerequisites, but I must protest against the sole use of Sunni Islam. If we are discussing the peace of Islam, we should use the entirety of the religion, from its majority to its minority, no?

Now, let the games begin!

A: Context
I wholeheartedly agree with the use of proper context in quotations. But the problem with providing nonbiased context is, there is no limit to how far back you can go. Let's take the example provided to us about the man and the guard. The guard shot the man. The man was a thief. Using the idea of providing adequate context, we can take a step back. What if the guard was actually drunk and high on drugs? What if he simply shot the man for fun? Then does the guard receive credit for stopping the thief? Was shooting and killing a thief a proper penalty to the crime? What if the thief only stole a paperclip? You see, with context, the burden of guilt switches hands by the second. Even then, however, there are certain situations where no matter the context, a certain action is unsanctioned. If we take the example of

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

we can see that Allah orders the killing of those who don't believe in him. Let us analyze this:
Appropriate in Time Period?: No; the Christians and the Jews of the time had similar laws but neither ordered the execution of nonbelievers.
Context: Inexcusable; your beliefs should NOT be the reason why your head is chopped off.

Better, yet this:

Quran (8:12) - “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Appropriate in Time Period?: No; Even if this was stated in the heat of battle, let's go back in time. Did we see widespread beheading (not the beheading of those of significant value) allowed in the Afghanistan War? No. Further back, Civil War? No. Even further back, Revolutionary War? No. Crusades? No (they did it, but it wasn't allowed). Romans? Nope.
Context: Disputable; I think in no context should beheading and mutilation be allowed.

B. Allah-approved Pork Chops
This argument supplements my case, and will be a series of quotes. (This is from my previous Islamic jihad-- ehem, I mean debate.)

Prohibition of other gods (rather common). Death penalty for this crime (not so common)
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]"

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."

Mutilation of enemies
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

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."

Allah-approved destruction
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

Case and point, to summarize my contentions
-- Context is impossible to limit, and the Quran approves and commands violence.

Thank you, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
Debate Round No. 1


okay,sorry for the late reply,but i had been busy in some personal matters recently. Anyway coming back to the topic, when I said context, I asked for the tafsir as each verse was revealed in a different time and place. Let me give the tafsir of the first verse
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

the full verse before and after it are:
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, and do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors. (190) Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers. (191) But if they desist, then indeed, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very- Merciful. (

Tafsir (Time Period Revealed and Context)
Here,now we know that Allah does not command us to initiate violence. Secondly, these verses were revealed when muslims were going for Umrah after signing a treaty of peace (please look it up,as there is less space to explain) an year before, they got news that the Makkans were planning an attack. The truth of these news is questionable, but this led a ripple of confusion among the muslims. They started asking questions are we allowed to fight them etc., so these verses were revealed in answer to their queries, and this is not a commandment for all muslims.

Second verse (full)

(9) And Allah has made it (the promise) merely to give you a good news, and so that your hearts might be at rest thereby. And the help is from none but Allah. Surely, Allah is Mighty, Wise. (10) When He covered you with drowsiness, as tranquility (descending) from Him and sent down upon you water from the heavens, so that He might purify you with it, and remove from you the impurity of Satan, and so that He might strengthen your hearts and make (your) feet firm therewith. (rain) (11) When your Lord revealed to the angels: "I am with you. So, make firm the feet of those who believe. I shall cast awe into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So, strike at the necks, and strike at every [so as to even reach] finger-joint of theirs." (12)

See wording over here is very important like I had said before. If we look at these words,then the necks were targets (favorite) because they killed an enemy instantly and if you want prisoners of war, removing his weapon by striking his hands of fingers to de arm him is necessary. So,here Allah does not command for everyone to be be-headed,and as for every finger tip, he says to them to de arm them so they may not cause bloodshed, and reaching the fingerjoints of a fighting warrior was a great feat ( you had to get through a 0.5-1 meter sword first!!)

Fighting is enjoined upon you, while it is hard on you. It could be that you dislike something, when it is good for you; and it could be that you like something when it is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.

Here it is not enjoined on all,but rather a group of people fullfilling it means others do not have to do it. Once a companion came to the Prophet (S.A.W) and asked to do Jihad,but he was turned down due to his parents being alive and sick and was told that taking care of them is his jihad. Secondly, this verse was revealed for a reason. Some Mischief makers or Munafiqs circulated that Qital of fighting does not need to be done. So, Allah revealed this verse to assure muslims that fighting had to be done,but not by everyone but keeping in strict line with guidlines.

Okay now I am running out of space, Please refer to
They give detailed meanings of verses, their time of revelation, the reason and context of the verses. These are my sources,one is the index of the Tafsir or context book and second is the online Quran which can be searched.

Now here are some verses proving Islam as a peaceful religion.
Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed. (Al Quran 16:91)
16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you)(not an enforcer or dictator). Important to note he only fought in some battles that too defending.
88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

tnk u,ran out of spce,shuld hav thught of tht


Look, don't get me wrong. To me, Islam may not be the most hand-holding, peace-loving religion there is, but the people are one of the nicest I've met. This debate is to argue the religion and its text.

To the debate:
You gave us a context of "cutting off fingers" as an "effective" way of "disarming a swordsman". This seems very causal and "eye-for-an-eye" to me. Yes, this method is effective-- almost TOO effective. Can you imagine what the loss of your fingers would mean to you? Especially in the CONTEXT of that time period, without your fingers you couldn't work, and without work you died.

Do we poke out the eyes of philosophers?
Do we cut off the tongues of people who start rumors?
Do we chop off the hands of a thief?
These are all effective methods of stopping crime, but are methods that should NOT be condoned.

Your ENTIRE constructive case is revolving around providing context and justification for quotes in the Quran.
I have proved that point moot by proving in some cases, no matter the context, the ends DO NOT justify the means.

Meanwhile, my two arugments remain untouched and not have been directly rebutted against.

With 3,820 characters remaining, I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2


Mahmedkpk forfeited this round.


By laws of debate and common sense, I claim victory.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mahmedkpk 1 year ago
Due to some personal issues,I was not able to complete he topic which I had initiated. I hope I will be able to comeback with another debate with the same opponent at some later time due to my inability to participate right now
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
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 Balacafa 1 year ago
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: ff