The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Islam Is Not Only a Peaceful Religion, but a Reasonable Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,181 times Debate No: 62591
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (192)
Votes (5)




This debate is going to contest the popular Western perspective that Islam is a violent religion, and moreover an unreasonable religion. In support of that view will be Con, and in denouncement of that view will be Pro. This debate will presuppose the following items of interest:

1. Anticipating already the tons of demographics concerning the recent violence of the Middle East and of countries yet more east, I would like all to please be aware that it is not enough to simply use statistics/demographics about violence in a region of the world and pin all or even a majority of that violence on the religion that is predominant there. This is common knowledge amongst the realm of philosophers and scientists alike, and any claims unsupported through this avenue are most likely going to get shot down.

2. The terms "peace" and "peaceful," and any derivatives thereof, will be used within the confines of reason. Peace, therefore, will not mean that if a gunman, for example, threatens to kill your wife, that peace is a reasonable and just solution. Violence is not a crime if it is in a manner of self-defense, accident, or as a mechanism by which to remove clear immorality or tyranny from a population.

3. This debate necessitates factual statements made about Islam, especially those that are derived from the Qur'an. Proper citations from the Qur'an, or any Islamic text for that matter, must be expressed. This is proper etiquette when discussing religious connotations, for often the source of each writing will be the core of the argument.

4. For reference, all sourced text from the Qur'an must be taken from the following website: The website hosts a number of translations of the Arabic text of the Qur'an, and all have been approved and are acceptable. They differ only very slightly in the sentence structure, in an associative manner, and do not change the meaning depending on the translation. Unless otherwise stated, translations are assumed to come from Sahih International, the primary translator of the Qur'an on the website. It is among the most reliable sources in this respect.

5. "Reasonable" means that which is in the confines of common sense. The term "reasonable," therefore, will not mean definitive or indisputable proof of God, but rather that which is likely and logical.

R1. Acceptance
R2. Opening Arguments
R3. Rebuttals
R4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals


I accept Pro's terms, and hope he doesn't mind if I focus on the "peaceful religion" subset of this debate. the likelihood of the truth of Islam can be mentioned, but seems too great a burden to add to an already complete proposition.

I furthermore agree to use "" for my holy book reference, although it should be mentioned it is clearly a Muslim-sponsored site which heavily censors some of the more controversial passages.

Good luck to my opponent in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Already in the comments of this debate are so many outright made-up claims, so much in fact that I worry the level of misinformation among non-Muslims has extended beyond what I am able to cover in four rounds. I thank those of you that wait for the debate to conclude to form your take on the matter.

I hereafter address Con. Before I commence my opening arguments, I would like to refute Con's claim that is a flawed source due to censorship of verses as a result of being a Muslim source. This is a false claim in virtually every respect. In the realm of discourse and anthropological frameworks, it is absolutely unacceptable to make defining claims about a religion or culture without referring to the religion or culture for information about themselves. If I wanted to be taken seriously, I would not under any circumstance go to a Christian website to learn about Islamic virtues and Islamic beliefs. And consequently, neither would I go to an Islamic website to learn about Christian beliefs. Using a Muslim source is not only acceptable in this scenario, but an intellectual necessity. As to Con's claims that the source has changed verses or censored some, there is absolutely no evidence to support this. On top of that, the website lists multiple translation sources from many different individuals or entities. So if Con would like, and he is still bent on the notion that some source is somehow corrupt, he can very well choose one of the many other translators, provided he mentions which one. He'll find, I guarantee, that there is no censorship and that each source is reputable. As mentioned before, the difference in translation comes only in the style of writing, in an associative manner. An example of this is that one translator might use "stone," while another may use "rock." There is no change in the meaning of the text, which is why each source is reputable.

Regarding Hadith (sayings of the Prophet of Islam), there is also a link to those on, compiled by doctors and scholars in the field of Islam. As an active member of the Muslim community, I can testify that this website is used in mosques and communities alike to teach children of the Qur'an and Hadith. Please refer to this website for your arguments based on the Hadiths as well. It is not that the Hadiths are different, but that the way that they are compiled can vary from website to website.


A. There is not a single recorded text in all of the entire religion of Islam, coming from either the Qur'an or the Hadith, that expresses violent behavior that isn't reasonably justified.

Before we refer to texts referring to seventy-some virgins, let me point out that these claims are false and don't exist in the Qur'an. I will take a step out of empirical evidence for a moment and would just like to say this: to an intellectual, whether atheist or Christian or Muslim, it is nigh an insult when witnessing the sheer amount of false information and blatant lies spread about on the web regarding an idea, be it religion or otherwise. I urge Con again, with these limited number of rounds, to crosscheck every source.

In support of argument "A," as written above, I will take a number of verses from the Qur'an that may at first seem to be of a violent nature:

1. The most popular anti-Islamic sentiment arises from the following verses in the Qur'an: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers" (Quran, 2:191).

This verse has been taken entirely out of context, which I will get to in just a moment, but even without context the verse can justify itself. First of all, when it is said, "kill them wherever you overtake them," it is in the context of battle to ensure victory. Again, in this scenario we have two peoples at war. We don't have two peoples arguing over a cup of tea. In war, it is the wisdom of the Qur'an to be fearless and steadfast and to not lay down your arms until the enemy surrenders, and that is what this verse is promulgating. Alongside this, the killing in war as mentioned by this verse, is done only in a manner of self-defense. "Expel them from where they have expelled you," can not be any more clear on this. It didn't say "invade" or "terrorize the peoples of other nations." It takes a lot of picking at straws to classify such a verse as only violent, but not reasonable. To a commander of a platoon in war in America, this is everyday advice during battle--no, this is common knowledge that doesn't even need to be justified in the American military. Somehow, though, people use these same battle tactics in the Qur'an not as logical tactics in war, but as methods of dominion by a violent race of primitives known as the "Muslims." It is downright absurd. As mentioned in the presuppositions, in order for Islam to be peaceful does not mean its followers should be dead horses when battle comes to them.

2. Atop this, this verse actually is taken out of context. Have you ever wondered what verses came before and after verse 191 of Chapter 2? Here they are as follows:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors" (Quran, 2:190).

"And if they cease [fighting you/surrender], then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" (Quran, 2:192).

"Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors" (Quran, 2:193). The word "fitnah" actually has no direct translation into English, and can have a number of meanings. Here, it means "persecution against Muslims." A virtue of the Qur'an is that oppression amongst humans is a great sin. Oppression does not mean hate Western culture because they have laptops and shiny buildings. Oppression is when there is an unequal, unjust, and dehumanizing power reigning over a given nation in this context. Is there anything violent about that?

Con may present any other text within the Qur'an alluding to violence--I have already taken the liberty of reviewing the most controversial one. I can guarantee that it is justified in the name of self-defense, accident, or a mechanism by which to remove tyranny. (Once again, tyranny in the eyes of Islam is oppression, which I've already defined.)

B. The fact that the Qur'an makes mention of such necessary violence is a testament to its validity. This one I believe is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll explain it some anyway. Humans have a longing for internal peace, pleasure, and comfort. Why would anyone make up a religion this rigorous? If this religion was made by a human being, don't you think that only the attractive forms of life would appeal to prospective believers? If you want people to believe in something you made up, you want it to sound attractive to those around you. There is nothing relatively attractive in the Qur'an that would have billions of people believing it for no reason. No alcohol, no sex before marriage, mention of war and duties in fighting wars, the giving of wealth, the belief in only one God and banishment of other idols--almost all these things were contrary to what the Quraish tribe around Muhammad was believing. Why make up a religion that is literally going to make you public-enemy number one?

The way Allah is completely unafraid to speak to our human aspect of violence and to tell us what should be done if that nature arises, is unlike any other religion's preparation for our own natures. It is not a sugar-coated religion, but one that to scholars and scientists alike resembles a most realistic one. And that is all necessary violence is--the ability to see realistically, rather than idealistically.


I thank my opponent for his superb opening arguments

I find the source for the Qur'an translation is a bit of a moot point, given that I agreed to use it, but I would point out the website's title is "The Noble Qur'an", and that all its translations are by Muslim scholars. Additionally, my opponent critizes me for suggesting that an advocacy website may not be entirely trustworthy. (I know, how dare I suggest). This is akin to saying that you should get information about whether to vote for a politician by asking them, or figuring out whether ISIS is good by asking Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. (1)

But this is irrelevant, so let's get started.

Now, of course, I could discuss the rampant violence and cruel acts of Islamic-extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, or the terrorists sponsored by almost every Muslim nation who otherwise pretend to oppose them. (2) But that would be avoiding the true question, that being the root cause of all the barbarism. Is it just that all these groups are coming together, happening to practice the same religion? (What a coincidence) Or is there something more inherent. In this round and in this debate, I will be arguing that not only is there something more embedded, but it is perpetuated by the Qur'an itself, and by the Muslim leaders not just of the present, but of the past, right down to the faith's very founder.

Mohammed and the Founders

To understand the present, we must view a proper context of the Qur'an, and how Islam is practice, which requires a look into the past. Indeed, the warlord-turned-prophet and his early followers were not exactly peace-lovers, nor did they possess even a basic understanding of what a peaceful religion would look like. Here are a brief list of charges against Mohammed:

1. In 632, Mohammed ordered a series of violent raids (11-ish) against Meccan trade caravans, claiming it was not make up for possession left in Mecca and of course that God gave him permission. (3) The raids were brutal and often bloody.

2. Later, Mohammed granted permission for Muslims to kill Christians and Jews as they saw fit. The only exception was if the "People of the Book" paid hefty tributes for immunity from slaughter. (4)

3. The concepts of both Jihad and Islamic Martyrdom were borne from this time. (5) However, I will note that at the time, the Muslim community was in constant mortal danger.

4. Mohammed sponsored what is known as a "dead poet's society", when he ordered the targeted killings of dozens of satirical and skeptical poets and writers. (6)

5. Perhaps most grievous of all, Mohammed and his followers are responsible for the massacre of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza. After winning a battle against the tribe and its allies, Mohammed attacked the home of the tribe and is responsible for the killing of all the men of the tribe, approximately 900. (7) I tremble to imagine the fate of the women.

I would expand the list many times its current length. The point is, a serial killer would be proud to compile a fifth of the body count that the prophet of the touted "Religion of Peace" was able to amass. I fully understand that the early Muslims had to fight to survive, but these acts are completely unjustified, and not worthy of a hardened criminal, much less God's chosen one.

Modern Day Clerics

Islam does not have a Pope. This I can appreciate, but it also means there is no head authority on what Islam is and isn't; it is up to the eternal quarreling of various Imams. And this leads to eternal trouble. It is these self-appointed prophets who order the fatwas against, for example, all of Denmark over a short cartoon satirizing Mohammed. (8) These radical Imams, existing throughout the west (9) and taking their inspiration from the Qur'an and its prophets, pose a great threat in the recruitment and success of radical groups.

What is it About Islam?

This question, why has Islam both historically and in modern day seen such violent members and orginazation arise from it, I hope to offer some insight on. Given the historical basis above, the answers can be found not just in the founders of Islam, but in its holy-book.

The biggest concern about the practice of Islam is the totality in which it is proposed. Islam promises to handle everything, to be a complete and, I use this phrase cautiously, a total solution. I imagine all of you have heard it: Islam is the solution. It claims to handle all in life: faith, diet, sex, politics, etc... This dangerous ideal is reinforced by passages that say "Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence..." The chief issue here is the supremacy and the utter inescapeability of the claims that Islam makes for itself. It is, after all, the solution.

While this overlying belief is a more subtle call for violence, plenty of much more immediate and direct commands can be found just a few verses later. "Allah has set a seal upon their (disbelievers) hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment." Vague is all I have to say. The first interpretation is that those who fail to subscribe to Allah will go to hell, which is questionable in itself. However, why should this not be interpreted as a command for bloodshed? Regardless of what it is intended to mean, who will say that this does not inspire hate and almost inevitably violence?

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment, and Allah is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution." The mindset of terrorists is not hard to determine from these passages. Allah is vengeful, capricious, and brutal, why shouldn't his followers be? Remember, readers, these quotes are lifted from the "official" translation, which ignore certain sections, like the ones condoning wife-beating. (I am not citing them as they are from the agreed upon source.) This is what so-called moderate Muslims are willing to say is in their holy-book.

Here we are again: "And it is they (disbelievers) who are fuel for the Fire." Need I say more? All the quotes I have taken so far are from the first three short chapters. I would do more research, except clearly I have plenty of material to work with already. My arguments write themselves. Here are a few more, all from the first five chapters, to think on:

"Say to those who disbelieve, "You will be overcome and gathered together to Hell, and wretched is the resting place."

"They denied Our signs, so Allah seized them for their sins. And Allah is severe in penalty."

"And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits - He will put him into the Fire to abide eternally therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment."

In conclusion, it is easy to discern why so many members of the solution, of the Religion of Peace, kill for their God. The order is there, in the book, in the teachings, and in the very martyrs and heroes of the faith of Islam. Let yourself not be fooled. People are good, and Islam, like many religions, does what it can to corrupt this. And praise be to those brave followers who resist.

(3) (4)
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank Con for the timely response.

It is most certainly not akin to asking a politician whether to vote for him or not when I say that you should use Please do not commit to the false analogy rhetorical fallacy clearly at play here. I say to Con again, under the criterion of research in the scientific and empirical fields, particularly those of anthropology concerning other cultures and religions, it is most often offensive to take the word of someone who is not a part of that culture or religion. One often doesn't even get acknowledged at the first sign of source-contamination. The problem Con has with the source is simply this, and I can vow to it that this is the issue--Con simply does not trust this site and its many founders and its numerous sources, claiming that some or all Muslims who constructed the site are somehow in an elaborate scheme to protect themselves from scrutiny.

I thank Con, however, for agreeing to use the site, but I would like to note that for many of the Qur'anic verses he failed to even give the chapter number or name. The only reason I wanted Con to use this website was because it was reputable, and because if he used a misleading/biased source for the text I would have to waste time and/or a round explaining why it was disputable.


It can be considered offensive for me to use Con's own sources against him, but offense is not my intent. I appreciate Con's professional method of learning some of the history behind Islam. But many of his sources either contradict what he claimed the sources said, or they actually turn right around and assist me in my point.

A. Upon the matter of Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL, I find it is rather trivial. I will quote what Con had to say about this matter, which made up a good chunk of his opening statement:

"Now, of course, I could discuss the rampant violence and cruel acts of Islamic-extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, or the terrorists sponsored by almost every Muslim nation who otherwise pretend to oppose them [. . .] Is it just that all these groups are coming together, happening to practice the same religion? (What a coincidence) Or is there something more inherent" (Ameliamk1).

The answer is simple. According to the FBI government website [1], the number of murders in the United States in 2012 was 14,661 murders, and that is NOT including accidents or negligence. That is intentional homicide by the people of America killing other people of America. This is an unbelievably vast magnitude away from the number of deaths due to Islamic terrorist organizations, not only in the East but worldwide, all of them (every last terrorist organization) combined. All of their actions combined worldwide, declaring themselves "Islamic" terrorist organizations, do not amount to the amount of American-American murders that occur. This is also not accounting for all the innocent bystander lives lost in the East when we waged wars on other soils. This is not to say that "Islamic" terrorist organizations aren't bad, because they certainly are and must be done away with. However, if the topic of terrorism is being so openly discussed, I point out you did not mention all of them. The Black Hand for example in Europe which instigated World War I, the dozens of millions of lives lost under Stalin in the Soviet Union, the famine of North Korea--so is religion to be blamed for all of them? Islam has nothing to do with the terrorist organizations; terrorist organizations want power and they use Islam as justification to get everyday citizens to agree with them. I'd rather not waste 5000 characters explaining the political turmoil in the East, as well as its history.

Con has never been so wrong to say that Islamic countries are always ridden with war and violence. The country with the most Muslims is Indonesia, I laugh because we've never had any reason to attack them and they've never had any reason to attack us. So with the greatest population of Muslims in Indonesia, when have you last heard an "Operation Shock-And-Awe" in Indonesia due to terrorism? That's right. Never. I'll say it again, never.

B. As to Con's claims about the history of Muhammad, this is where Con's sources turn on him. First of all, Con cited a Wikipedia page regarding the Caravan Raids first. He mentioned 11-ish raids, and he said they were "brutal and often bloody." See, the source he cited itself explicitly mentions that nine of the eleven raids did not even see a single fight. On one of the raids where only one person was killed by a single arrow, Muhammad was furious because he did not order the attack, for the attack was carried out on the Sacred Month by one of his subordinates. Also, Muhammad refused to take the loot for that raid and did not share in the wealth. As for the final raid when again one of his subordinates attacked a caravan and killed the people. Once again, Muhammad disapproved of this through an admonishment from one of God's disapproving revelations. First and foremost, once again this source Con cited claims that Muhammad had many threats against his life, and Muslims in Makka were being persecuted and denounced. These raids, along with the intention of penitence, were a means of retaliating against the Quraish.

C. Another source Con cited, the PBS source, actually defines what jihad really is under the terms of the Prophet himself. Jihad, reported to have been described by the Prophet as the little jihad, is the jihad against those unbelievers that cause ruin among Islamic nations. The greater Jihad is the striving to better oneself and become a better Muslim, and to do right rather than wrong--this is the primary definition of Jihad in Islam. This source also explicitly states exactly what I had said about terrorist organizations quoting indirect passage from the Qur'an to build power. Con's sources are much appreciated.

D. As to the sixth source on Con's list, claiming Muhammad ordered the killing of dozens of poets and writers, the writer of that article is founding author James Marlandson of a website called "," a website that was founded by Christian missionaries to convert Muslims in the East. I've read much of that website and recognize it immediately--it is filled with made-up facts.

E. Con's other source from also works against him: the Iranian man who was executed called the Quran "the Satanic Verses," writing treacherous things about Muslims, and ensured it got published in multiple languages too, while others intentionally drew offensive cartoons about Muhammad and published them. Here, it is not Islam that is inciting violence, but people who hate Islam that are inciting violence.

F. The Jews Con claims Muhammad slaughtered actually violated a peace treaty with Muhammad and sided with the Quraish tribe that attacked Muhammad and his followers, also from Con's sources.

G. Regarding the verses of the Qur'an cited by Con, he uses almost solely the verses regarding Hell and its punishment, claiming that such a religion "inspire[s] hate and almost inevitably violence" (Ameliamk1). This is to say that if a parent punishes a child for doing something wrong, then the sibling of the child that is punished will become violent. This analogy holds true due to the status of punishment and reward allotted to both a parent and God, and the children are very analogous to humans.

H. My ending verse for this rebuttal is a peaceful statement in the Qur'an I would like Con to focus on: "[W]hoever 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" (Qur'an, 5:32). This statement is a real, and true, testament to the mercy and peace of Islam.



I thank my opponent for his rebuttals and look forward to his future rounds.

Now, before I begin in offering responses, I have noticed an interesting dynamic emerging in my opponent's writing. In the last round, I leveled some very grave charges against Islam and its founder Mohammed. I saw several good, albeit limited, options for how my opponent could respond. For example, he could question the historical backing for many of my claims. Instead, what he chose is the subject of what I wish the readers to observe. My adversary, rather than face up or deny the accusations, prefers to accept them as fact, but in some bizarre way try to justify the acts. Looking back at his previous gambit, one is hard-pressed to discover an argument which does not involve the rationalization of severe crimes. This is both the basis of my response, but also something important about Islam. In the place of facing up to adversity within their own movement, Muslims and their defenders will attack their critics, thus feeding the extremists and allowing them to proceed unpunished.

For example, all reading this have undoubtedly heard that radical Islam is the west's fault; or at the very least, the US or Europe is responsible for facilitating its rapid expansion. Whether this is true is irrelevant. Its missing the point. And I will be motioning to this stark refusal in much of this round.

Yes, Other People are Evil. What's Your Point?

Here I will begin with what is possibly the most egregious exhibit of what I just mentioned. The argument appears to be this: non-Muslims commit evil acts and crimes, and therefore when Muslims kill in the name of their God, it is acceptable. Not so, and I expected my opponent would at least make somewhat more subtle attempts to change the subject. Indeed, I did not even begin to suggest that radical Muslims are the sole arbiters of evil, nor that their crimes outweigh those of non-Muslims. But the point remains unblemished, that Islam as a whole encourages and perpetuates the violence practiced by the fringe.

The murder number in the United States is far greater annually than those of IS or Al-Qaeda. But that is only because they are relatively poor and under-staffed. Were any of these organizations to be granted a stockpile of nuclear weapons, simply imagine the consequences. Evil is a measure of potential more than action.

Indonesia, as my opponent submits, has not suffered the blight of terrorism nearly as much as many of the other theocracies and "Muslim Countries" in the Middle East and Africa, but think not that the nation is free of it. In fact, the council on foreign relations not only cites the rise of extremism in Indonesia, but describes it as "a fertile breeding ground for radical Islamic movements" due to its rampant poverty and lack-luster government. (1)

Mohammed and His Offenses

B. I must confess one thing. I did not read through the information on the caravan raids carefully enough to detect that most did not involve killing. However, here it is again, readers: my opponent does not admit nor deny that Mohammed ordered these raids, but instead downplays the evil of them and argues attacking unarmed merchants is an acceptable way of retaliation against a nation. I can accept everything my adversary says, but that has no impact on the ultimate question: did Mohammed order raids on merchants, for which he attained wealth, or did he not?

C. It matters little what Jihad actually means, but what it is taken to mean, and how it is practiced. Perhaps a massive misunderstanding between antiquity and the modern day is to blame, but Jihad is too closely connected with the violence of the early Muslims to be interpreted as anything else except, at least in part, killing.

D. I'm sorry my opponent does not find this source reliable-- therefore, he seems to conclude, my claim about Mohammed ordering the killing of poets and satirists must be false. Well, here are a few more. (2)(3)(4) But once again, in the stead of further research to discover whether the damning accusation is true, my opponent simply finds an angle he can use by which to try and falsify the claim.

E. The execution of a writer for the controversial and possibly hateful thinks he writes sounds like a totalitarian, perverted act. Not only does Pro justify the cold-blooded murder by what the deceased had said in critique of Islam, but then goes on to suggest that it was not the Muslims who were violent on this occasion, but the dead author! Could my point be any more clear than this? Could any straw-man illustrate the point better than my opponent does, completely without irony?

F. On this point, I must defer to the viewers to make a moral judgement. Mohammed and his soldiers slaughtered a tribe, in cold blood, killing 900 men and brutalizing the women and children. Here is my opponent's, in full: "The Jews Con claims Muhammad slaughtered actually violated a peace treaty with Muhammad and sided with the Quraish tribe that attacked Muhammad and his followers, also from Con's sources." Again, this was no pitched battle, but a matter of revenge from religious fanatics on a tribe whose people had done nothing. It is up to the readers. Was the massacre justified? I need no argument here.

G. If a parent takes violent punitive measures against a child, then the sibling in this hypothetical situation will indeed display greater inclination for violence themselves. Pro, if you wish to draw an analogy, at least ensure that it actually disputes my point.

The readers of this debate are perfectly welcome to carefully peruse the paragraphs of Pro, and may reasonably disagree with me, but I see not one defense of Mohammed either explicitly or implicitly written in anything he says, replaced by the pathetic and morally tumultuous condoning of evil.


I find many of my earlier contentions to have gone without response, but from what my opponent does offer in way of rebuttal, he seems to only confirm my points. Islam does perpetuate evil through its writings, through many of its members, through its founder, and through the evasive maneuvers taken by its moderate, peaceful subscribers. There ar many sources of cruel deeds, but Islam is neither excused nor an exception.

Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his response and for his time.

I would've brought my own peaceful arguments, but I ran out of characters, and I realize now I should have allotted a greater character limit. But I saw claims so seriously flawed that I could not resist.

Let me address the so-called "dead-poet's" society first. Con lists three more sources, when the first source was in no way reliable. The first new source just quotes James M. Arlandson, which was the Christian missionary trying to convert Muslims of the previous round's article Con used. I advise Con to be more careful, because all he's done is repeat last round's source. WikiIslam is in no way affiliated with Wikipedia and is founded by anti-Islamic fanatics. It makes claims about seventy-some virgins, which if you just look up the Qur'anic verses they're citing, you find the Qur'an verse isn't even talking about Paradise at all and doesn't mention seventy-some virgins at all--this is just a quick, immediate problem I've already uncovered. And Con's final eBook which has hardly a single purchase and is by an obscure author, lists the description of the book as "It's All About Islam - Stupid Kafir". One outraged comment in the book's reviews says, "This is a bull**** book." For heaven's sake, the title of the book is: "Islam: Evil in the Name of God. Muhammad--Murderer, Terrorist, Rapist/Child Molester." Need I say more? All those sources are not biased--rather they are so racist and unintelligent it's almost a crime.

Regarding the punished child analogy--I would've thought Con would fill in the details. So let me revise and waste some characters explaining. Let's say a parent tells two brothers they have to be good boys, but will leave them to do as they please until the day is over (Judgement Day). One child does wrong while another doesn't. When the day is over, the parent punishes the bad boy and rewards the other. By saying a person will become violent for believing in the punishment of others for their sins, is saying that they will become violent when the punishment is actually administered, because they haven't witnessed the gruesome punishment before that time, have they? So are Muslims becoming violent against those punished after the time on Earth has already passed? I don't think so. The promise of punishment for stealing a cookie by the parent doesn't make the good boy lash out on the bad boy for stealing it, it makes no sense to say that this is a logical psychological response.

As to the "other people are evil, what's your point" argument, I urge Con to revisit the point of my argument. The point was that just because one group of a religion, like the Westboro Baptist Church for Christianity or the Soviets of atheist Russia, is a vile group by nature, does not even come close to warranting a claim about a whole religion or group. Con just goes on to argue that, in essence, what the jihadists believe is what Muslims everywhere believe, just that the latter 1 billion decide not to act on it. "Islam as a whole encourages and perpetuates the violence practiced by the fringe," he says. Where is the backing of this claim? Nowhere. It disappoints me when we come here as intellectuals, but my opponent chooses to literally make a stirring claim like this one and not even provide evidence. The only response to this is Con's claim that Indonesia is also prone to terrorism, once again Con turns on himself. "Due to its rampant poverty and lack-luster government," is the reason for the fertility of terrorism, Con says. Once again, we cannot draw on just a religion as being the cause of violence. In fact, many of the riots were on governmental buildings, not other races or groups, due to the citizens' unrest about governmental decisions.

The slaughtering of "Jews" is also misunderstood by Con. Once again, the attack on the tribe was an act of war, a war which was initiated when the unsuspecting Muslims found the Jewish tribe supporting their enemies, despite a treaty made between them. It was not "the slaughtering of Jews," but rather the killing of enemies that had betrayed the Muslims due to the act of war initiated, period. It has nothing to do with Judaism, as in the Qur'an people of the Torah (and Christians) are appointed mercy and acceptance from the Islamic God. Let's try not to intentionally twist words to make it sound like Islam has something against Jews, because that is just a single ton of pathos, with no logic behind it.

As to the killing of authors and "free-thinkers," Con says, "Not only does Pro justify the cold-blooded murder by what the deceased had said in critique of Islam, but then goes on to suggest that it was not the Muslims who were violent on this occasion, but the dead author!" First of all, I do in no way condone or justify the killing of critics of Islam, I welcome all those who question this religion. Once again, this type of tyrannical behavior is not prevalent in societies that are educated and not impoverished. This only happens in those extremist nations that have seen unprecedented historical turmoil, from insurgencies to dictatorships to wars to rogue terrorist organizations. Second of all, intentionally drawing disgusting cartoons about Muhammad to stir anger within Muslims is in Con's eyes liberty. No, even in America this is a crime for which you can be imprisoned because it is indisputably racist. And a book about the Qur'an, called the "Satanic Verses," we can assume is even more offensive with its contents. Still, I did not claim it's okay to kill authors and critics, neither did I say they were violent, and rather condemn their deaths. On top of that, the religion itself encouraged literature and the seeking of knowledge thereof. The first word of the first verse revealed of the first chapter revealed in Islam is "Read!" (Qur'an, 96:1). And the chapter goes on to say that "God taught mankind through the pen that which he knew not." Why would a God then condemn speaking through literature, when God himself taught man symbolically by the pen? The truth is, God in Islam does not. Many more verses agree. In fact, Muslims had a movement in pursuit of knowledge that resulted in the creation of Algebra, fields of optics and astronomy, and the learning of cultures of other peoples. Knowledge-seeking, reading, and acceptance of opinions in discourse is mandatory to all in Islam, not condemned. I advise Con to check up on his facts. America didn't let women vote either, or slaves have their freedom, so is the religion in the country to be blamed for it? No, Con doesn't understand that free-speech and the like are regulated by governments. Islam itself never prohibits the sharing of information.

It matters very much what Jihad means, not its connotations, because it acts as evidence that terrorist organizations have poisoned the word, thereby giving a false sense of Islam, my point exactly.

The raids were done as an act of war against Arab tribes persecuting Muslims and threatening Muhammad's life. Con ignores that war is violence on both sides. Con seems to believe that these raids are proof not of a historic war, but of a religion's violence, which is absurd.


Hatred for Islam in recent times is greater than the willingness to truly learn about it. Information is taken by biased/racist sources, hence people against Islam read from people also against Islam. Research against Islam is not done in a scientific manner, but in a manner that just says "your religion is barbaric, and people beside me agree." No sound evidence is presented from the religion's actual text, but from sources like Wikipedia, missionaries against Islam, and racist books that don't even demonstrate proper grammar. Actual text is taken out of context, so much so that apologists fear to read the sentences before and after a verse. I leave this debate learning more about the people who strive with their lives to defeat a religion that billions follow quietly, unfazed, and calmly peaceful.


I thank my opponent for his writing and his arguments, and have very much enjoyed this discussion of ours.

People are Good, Islam is Bad

In response to my asking how the evil of others excuses the evil of Islam, my opponent accuses me of making broad and unjust generalization about his religion. Indeed, that is precisely what I am doing, but let us not befuddle that with the people who practice the religion. Were all self-respecting Muslims to accurately follow the word of the Qua'ran and of Mohammed and of Islam's bloody history, they would all be forced to admit that the likes of ISIS were right. However, it is the humanity of people that prohibits religion, including Islam, from committing the wrongs derived from the outdated despotism it was based on.

One of my favorite quotes, by Christopher Hitchens, is "left alone, good people will do good things, and wicked people will do wicked things. To make a good person do a wicked thing, well, that takes religion". As an extension of my belief that people are generally good, those who subscribe to Islam are as well. But that does not connote that Islam cannot therefore be bad. People are good, and Islam, like most religions, does its utmost to corrupt human nature.


This is likely a lost cause, given that my opponent will likely never accept a source that disagrees with him as credible. I will note, though, there is a difference between biased and false. A source can have an agenda and simply be using facts to perpetuate it, which my opponent doesn't seem to realize, preferring to apply the "well, it says something bad about Islam, so it must be a lie" philosophy. In my last round I cited two books regarding the "dead poet's society", the sizable collection of satirists and intellectuals murdered on the orders of Mohammed. Simply on the grounds that they oppose Islam, my opponent dismisses them as infeasible and even bigoted.

This is denial at its most hilarious and its most tragic, simultaneously.

The Massacre of the Jews

Could I possibly emphasize this point any more? Mohammed and his immediates slaughtered, in cold blood, over 900 unarmed men. So what if the tribe betrayed Islam? So what if the attack targeted not Jews, but simply the "traitors"? The victims of the bloody assault had done nothing, nor had their wives and children, who met equally gruesome fates.

Government Vs Islam

Finally, I will confess to my opponent making a strong argument, that the federal abuses in the Middle East are the fault of government, not of the religion which they claim to represent. To which I say, you're wrong. Iran, the example my opponent saw as most prevalent, is a theocracy; it calls for a mild form of Sharia law, which has an etymology dating back to the Qua'ran's reference to the "way", or the correct method by which to conduct oneself as a Muslim. (1) One of the basic tenants is that women must be entirely covered, one of the less barbaric portions of the system. Whatever Sharia was originally intended to convey, the evil of it is clear, and has been used, as it was supposed to be, by Islamist governments the world over. In short, literal translation of Islam created the abusive governments in the Middle East, not the other way around.


I see little else to rebut, so I conclude here.

Islam, the force, the philosophy, the solution, whatever you wish to call it, is evil, from its very conception. Its beloved founder, its early followers, and even its holy book radiate the filth practiced by extremists like Al-Qaeda and Isis. Constrained by basic humanity, the ordinary Muslim, like my adversary, only assists this process in their refusal to soul-search, and instead lashing out at any who question or accuse. Over the course of this debate, my will has only been strengthened by my research and my opponent's vague and telling evasions and re-directions.

With that said, good job to Pro, and may the best man win.

Debate Round No. 4
192 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
>Reported: DavidMgold // REMOVED<

5 points to Con (arguments, sources). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better arguments.}

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No attempt *at all* to explain sources vote. (2) A mere recitations of the point category ("Con had much better arguments") is not a sufficient explanation of *why* that side did better so as to constitute a valid RFD.
Posted by Proluvies 2 years ago
A hadith by Abu Dawud, "Plunder is no better than carrion."
Taking goods from others in a time of war, even if they're you're enemy, is like acquiring dead animal carcass, according to Muhammad.

According to the Qur'an itself, "O ye Muslims! go forth in the name of All&#257;h and perform Jih&#257;d with the intention of protecting religion [not with the intention of invasion]. But beware! Do not embezzle the wealth of spoils and do not deceive a people. Do not mutilate the enemy dead, do not kill women and children, nor religious recluses; and do not kill the elderly. Create peace in the land, and treat the people with benevolence, for surely, All&#257;h loves the benevolent."

I find it very odd that the most unreliable sources, sources that scientists laugh at like WikiIslam and Wikipedia, prove your point, and the most official, public sources prove my point.
Posted by Proluvies 2 years ago

Perhaps you believe you've achieved some form of transcendence by denouncing a religion you talk about, paragraph after paragraph, with arguments and claims that I can prove wrong in literally thirty seconds, with a simple Google search, often derived from the very anti-Islamic websites you call home--heck, even they disagree with half of what you just said. "Hundreds of raids," "100 raids in 1 year," "an all encompassing ideology that would destroy not only of our institutions but would quite literally destroy or subjugate people that don't profess it."

You're, it seems, a very ignorant person that bathes in grandiloquent words so as to sound smart, like perhaps you've attained a level of reasoning that supercedes others'--I spotted multiple incorrect usages of words that any learned person wouldn't confuse. This is not a personal attack, but a comment on your process of thinking that alludes to your flawed perspective.

Overall I'm done arguing with people like you. It's because you've attained the immunity of the digital world that you do not cower in the face of lies--were this a public debate with many intellectuals scrutinizing every word you say, David, you would find your arguments torn to shreds. If you make claims like the ones you do, and you do not have evidence to support that can be crosschecked from multiple sources, I'm afraid you will be laughed at. If I ever debate an anti-Islamist again, it will be in the light of the grand public, the ultimate, and immediate, arbiter of our dispute.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
Open debate challenge - Was Muhammad Guilty of Ethnically Cleansing the Jews and Jew Hatred?
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
mightbenihilism, thank you for your comments. What keeps me up an night and keeps me from just relaxing after a 10 or 12 hour work day is the fact that to my bewilderment our education system, take for example a public school in California, decided to require 7th graders adopt an Arab name, recite the shahada, memorize verses from the Qu'ran, and of course learn these revisionist, sanitized accounts about Muhammad and ignoring the hundreds of battles and conquests that led to the establishment of the first Islamic caliphate. What really burns me up is the mind-boggling insanity of political correctness that requires the distortion, revision, or denial of history to propagate a religion that is actually an all encompassing ideology that would destroy not only of our institutions but would quite literally destroy or subjugate people that don't profess it. I briefly commented on Tariq Ramadan's video "explaining" the meaning of Jihad, which amounted to him talking about a mythical inner struggle without any reference to the Qu'ran or Hadith. Ironically, his Muslim viewers kept asking the same question of why he was hiding the meaning! The level of deception on this issue is chilling and I shutter to contemplate what it means for the future and the past could not be any clearer.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
According to the Tafsir Ibn Kathir - "......the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah" He said, "Yes" He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people." Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Quraiza. According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons" He said, "Yes". He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people." He said: "Where?" He said, "Banu Quraiza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them." So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Quraiza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Quraiza." So from your own Muslim sources, your entire claim to justify genocide is proven false. The Banu Qurayza didn't become a target until after the battle when allah "told him" to siege yet another Jewish tribe. By this point in the story rational individuals would give up listening to why the Jews deserved wholesale slaughter.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
I think DavidMGold should craft a mandatory text-book to be taught to all children in non-Islamic countries (including homeschoolers). I'm serious. We probably disagree on a lot of stuff but reading his posts is like reading clear, beautiful sunshine. I've had cups of the most delicious coffee which weren't so enlivening, pure and awesome. Thank you David! If you ever run for president I will totally get my pugs decked out in DavidMGold4Prez sweaters and let them loose in department stores, restaurants and libraries across these glorious United States of America!
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
Proluvies, NEVER! I will never quit referring to Muhammad's genocide of the Banu Qurayza. 800 men and boys and a woman were beheaded by this Islamic bloodbath. What I find repugnant are Muslims like yourself that attempt to rationalize wholesale slaughter. You lie about the non-battle of the trench, whereby the Banu Qurayza could have ended Muhammad and Islam by allowing the Meecans into Medina and aiding them with more combatants but they did not. According to Ishaq, Ka'b was tricked into meeting the Meecan envoy and he related the following account - "When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army... They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." So your claim is disproven from Muhammad's earliest Muslim biographer. So please dispense with these ridiculous lies that Muhammad tried to diplomatically resolve the battle that came after 5 years of countless raids and attacks on their trade caravans. Should it comes as a surprise that before attacking and stealing all the Banu Nadir had Muhammad murdered Ashraf and we have this pious quote - Tabari 7:97 "The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power."
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
The Banu Nadir met a similar fate. In 625, one of Muhammad's soldiers murdered two men from a friendly tribe. So what does Muhammad do? Naturally, he goes to the Banu Nadir with his men and demands the Jewish tribe pay the blood money! He sat outside the wall waiting for the payment until magically allah "told him" they were going to assassinate him by dropping a rock from the wall on his head. So Muhammad leaves, returns with an army, begins his siege, and again the Jews surrender without fighting and again they left with only would they could pack on a camel. This time Muhammad took all the wealth and property for himself!

Shamelessly recorded by Bukhari - Narrated 'Umar: The properties of Bani An-Nadir which Allah had transferred to His Apostle as Fai Booty were not gained by the Muslims with their horses and camels. The properties therefore, belonged especially to Allah's Apostle who used to give his family their yearly expenditure and spend what remained thereof on arms and horses to be used in Allah's Cause.

What an amazing story of how Muhammad speaks nothing of a Muslim murdering people and demands the Jews make the payment of blood money only to invent a blatant lie that allah "told him" he was going to be assassinated which is the frivolous "evidence" of the Jews trying to assassinate him to he lays siege to them with his army and steals all their wealth and property to enrich his own family and spend more money spilling blood and committing more theft. Only a delusional individual could look at this event and suggest this was a prophet much less justify the crime.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
Let's be clear, the Banu Qaynuqa were an example of Muhammad's hatred for the Jews and his clear desire to claim wealth and property. The justification was a Muslim being killed after he murdered a Jewish merchant. They were unprepared for battle and immediately surrendered. Muhammad wanted to slaughter them but angrily relented due to a mutual Arab friend who could not tolerate their wholesale slaughter.

According to Ishaq - Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, "O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients" (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle's robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, "Confound you, let me go." He answered, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change"' The apostle said, "You can have them."

They took a few tools and nothing else. Muhammad and the Muslims confiscated their wealth and land with Muhammad getting a 20% cut. Surah 3:10-12 says this is their punishment for not accepting Muhammad.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm scractching my head wondering why no one voted con when he deserved it. I'm not a muslim and I can see that con didnt research properly. Con's sources are unreliable , coming from obviously biased sites. Con doesnt dispute the fact that these sources condemn Islam. I dont know how con got away with it. He would fail any college degree with the sources he provided. Well if he can do it, then so can I and I no longer am obliged to give reasonable reliable unbiased sources anymore! Also I noticed several spelling errors from con than pro. The tricky part are the arguments. According to both parties, yes, Islam does advocate violence, even if it is justifiable. It also advocates punisment for the crimes of others. Con is correct. Pro is correct that the Quran is also very heavily against killing and it condemns unjustifiable murder. But is this enough to say that islam is peaceful? One can advocate peace, but does this define the person as peaceful? More RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am nulling my vote because this debate has gone sour.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting, interesting, interesting debate! Ultimately I awarded the win to Pro because I think he made better arguments; I do, however, believe he could have made a stronger case to support the resolution. Both relied almost exclusively on the Quran to define Islam--but this is dishonest. This is like claiming that the Bible is Christianity. Not so. Christianity is many more factors than the Bible alone, and must take into consideration culture, important contributing philosophers, historical progression, and of course popular superstitions and cultural propaganda. This is what religion is in any community. It is also true for Islam; the quran contributes to Islam but it is NOT Islam in its entirety; hence the sectarian bloodshed. Pro won this debate because he convinced me of two things: America has been plagued by the same problems Islamic cultures now face and modern-day America--considered a success--suffers from excessive internal violence. (see comments)
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I started impressed by Pro's arguments, but things quickly went downhill. One of the major problems with Pro's logic was revealed when he claimed: "I did not claim it's okay to kill authors and critics, neither did I say they were violent" "[People] intentionally drew offensive cartoons about Muhammad and published them. [These] people who hate Islam [...] are inciting violence." Pro clearly considers people who publicly mock Islam as responsible for the violent retaliation of offended Muslims. This makes Islam look like a bully religion that hits you first and excuses itself by shouting "He started it!" That's neither reasonable, nor peaceful. 2 birds 1 stone and both halves of Pro's resolution fall together. There's also the issue of Muhammed raiding unarmed merchants as vengeance for what their people did. Pro's justification of this applies equally to 9/11. Pro admitted Jihad can mean violence so further discussion on this point was just a red herring.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There wasn't much for Pro to plant a flag on, and what there wasn't, it wasn't the best light, at all. Con was able to demonstrate unrefuted points, which were also the most damning. Good debate, but its gotta go to con.