The Instigator
Con (against)
19 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Islam Is a Religion of Terrorism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 4/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,901 times Debate No: 22927
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)




I have seen that you have been in a few of these debate, and I am interested. The first round is for acceptance.


Thank you for the challenge. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


I. What does Islam mean?
"Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining. In a religious context it means 'voluntary submission to God'."[1]

"The Arabic word 'Islam' simply means 'submission', and derives from a word meaning 'peace'."[2]

Islam means peace and submission to God. Peace is one of the most important of Islam's

II. What did Muhammad say?

"The prophet Muhammad said, 'Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or sick people'."[3]

"Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: 'Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.'"[4]

"The Prophet Muhammad also prohibited the killing of non-Muslims who have a peace treaty with the Muslims. He said: 'He who kills a non-Muslim (who has a peace treaty) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, and its smell is sensed from a distance as far as forty years journey.' Even in the battlefield, the Prophet gave strict instructions and outlawed the killing of non-combatants and innocent civilians. He said: 'Fight in the name of God, but do not kill old men, children and women...'"[5]

Muhammad did not advocate for useless killing and in fact spared the people of modern day Mecca even though those people had slaughtered thousands of his followers. This act alone proves that Islam is peaceful.

III. What did Abu Bakr say?

"Abu Bakr a close companion and successor (Caliph) of the prophet whilst giving instructions to his army general said: 'I command you not to do ten things, do not kill women, do not kill children, do not kill the elderly, do not destroy trees, do not destroy properties, do not slaughter animals unless it is for food, neither flood or set fire to palm trees, avoid extremism, and do not act cowardly or weak.'"[5]

"The final instructions he gave to Usaama {Radiyallaahu'anhu} prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day. Part of his instructions to the Muslim army were: 'Do not be deserters, nor be guilty of disobedience Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter any sheep or cows or camels except for food. You will encounter persons who spend their lives in monasteries. Leave them alone and do not molest them.'[6]

Abu Bakr was the main follower of Muhammad, and basically continued to preach in his tradition. His words also signify thr peacefulness of Islam.

IV. What does the Qur'an say?

"Goodness and evil are not equal.
Repel evil with what is better.
Then that person with whom there was hatred,
may become your intimate friend!
And no one will be granted such goodness
except those who exercise patience and self-restraint,
none but people of the greatest good fortune.
Quran 41:34-35"[7]

"The Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, states: "Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur'an, 5:32)"[4]

"'For this reason, We decreed for the children of Israel that whoever kills a person- unless it is for murder or for spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he has killed the whole of humankind, and whoever saves the life of a person it is as if he has saved the life of the whole of humankind. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth' [al-Qur'an: 5: 32]"[5]

"'Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.' (Qur'an 2:190)"[8]

"'If [non-Muslims] withdraw from you and do not war against you and offer you peace, God alloweth you no way to [to war] against them.' (Quran 4:90)"[8]

The Qur'an does not advocate for killing innocent civilians in any way same of form. In fact, it is preached that those who do will suffer the eternal torture of hell. The Qur'an also specifically states that those who repent should be saved and fully redeemed.

V. What is Jihad?

"But jihad has very positive connotations in the Islamic world. It is akin to religious duty: when someone wants to better themselves, they embark on a jihad. Whether it's to quit smoking, pray more, and in some cases, fight off anyone preventing them from practicing their religion."[9]

"Al-Ghazali captured the essence of Jihad when he said: "The real Jihad is the warfare against (one's own) passions. Dr. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi calls Jihad "the execution of effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society." In a way, Jihad is the Muslim's purest sacrifice: a struggle to live a perfect life and completely submit to God."[10]

"Similarly, in the Quran, we are told to invite people to God's message with wisdom and kind englightenment (Quran 16:125). The word "jihad" (Arabic) simply means to strive. For example, in Quran 9:79 it speaks of those who are charitable, as striving (Arabic noun: juh'dahum; derived from "jihad"). A negative form of "jihad" is referred to in 29:8, where one's (misguided) parents may strive (again derived from "jihad") to convince a child about idol-worship. The verse speaks of it being permissable to disobey one's parents in such cases (the general Quranic commandment is to honor one's parents), and to be devoted to God Alone. The previous verses (29:5-7) also speak of striving for God, for our own good. There is no warfare implied.""Striving in the cause of God, may include fighting in self-defense (9:41-44, 9:81). However, this is only in the case of war. Historically at the time of Muhammad, the submitters (muslims) were under attack from the idolatrous tribes of Arabia who saw the message of monotheism as a threat to their way of life. All of Muhammad's wars were in self-defense, not aggression. The point to be emphasized here, is that the Quran forbids aggression of any kind. In today's day and age most countries provide freedom of religion. Thus, there is no present context in which striving will include fighting a "war".""The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self-defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably"[11]

Jihad is literally translated as a "struggle". Warfare against other religions should not be involved because it is condoned in the Qur'an. Jihad when translated correctly is being better in your worship of God.


Islam itself means peace and voluntary submission to Allah. The Qur'an states on many occasions that killing or harming innocent civilians, even of other religions, is against the will of Allah. Both Muhammad and Abu Bakr confirm this. The wars they fought were for the voluntary spread of Islam. The conquered peoples were still allowed to keep their own religions. And the treated the peoples with extreme kindness, even if they had not. And jihad means just a closer realtonship to Allah. Peace through Allah.




I want to thank my partner for agreeing to debate this topic.


Islam is a religion of terrorism. By definition, terrorism is the “unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments often for ideological or political reasons.” [1]


The Qur’an is chock full of places where “Allah” commands the Muslims to fight the unbelievers. [2]


"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

Surah 2 is a revenge text. Muhammad (p) commanded the Islamic people to fight them (the unbeliever) wherever you may find them, and commands them to drive them out of their home because they did that to you. This is clearly terrorism.


"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).

No explanation needed. Allah COMMANDS the “prophet” Muhammad (p) to urge the Muslims to fight in Allah’s cause.

C. Slay the non-Muslims

Back to the definition of terrorism, this verse must take the cake:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).

Muhammad (P) tells the Muslim people to slay the idolaters and ambush them simply because they are idolaters.

D. Beheading

"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).

Here, Allah tells us that he will cast fear in everyone who disbelieves and beheads those that smite of the unbelievers with each finger. Why? Because they oppose Allah.

E. Fighting is prescribed, even if they dislike it[3]

2.126, “Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a think which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you do 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 not under attack at that time. In the Hadith, we learn that this verse was narrated when Muhammad (p) was motivating his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.


Throughout Islamic history, people have been given the choice to convert to Islam or die (the fallacy “Appeal to force). It has its roots in the Qur’an and the Hadith.


8.39, “And fight them until there is no more Fitanah and the religions of worship with all be for Allah alone. BUT if they cease then certainly Allah is all-seer of what they do.”

B. Fight till everyone converts

Sahih Muslim (1:33) The messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad (p) is his Prophet, and they establish prayer and pay zakat.”


Islam teaches terrorism. Good luck to my partner.

[1] Terrorism | Difine Terrorism. n.d. 21 April 21, 2012.

[2] Slick, Matt. Islam, the religion of peace, and terrorism. n.d. Document. 21 April 2012. <;.

Debate Round No. 2


My argument is going to have to be kind of short. I am sorry. I came into contact with something and my face is covered in hives and I do not feel very good.

I. Fighting in the Qur'an

"'But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah' [Quran 9:61].

The importance of this later verse is that peace is the ultimate goal. It ought to be the ideal and norm that a society should seek."[1]

A. Fight in the Cause of Allah

"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., (Qur'an 2:193)"[2] This is the verse just two ahead of yours. The verse is for self defense. You have used one verse but have messed the whole chapter. Also, it is not terrorism to defend your home.

B. Allah Urges War

Now, let us take a look at some verses of the Qur'an. First, consider the following verses:

"'Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom Allah doth know.' [Quran 8:59-60]

Or, the favorite verse of Islam-bashers:

'Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.' [Quran 9:5]

Based on these verses, if anyone draws or "wants" to draw the conclusion that Islam is violent and it preaches violence, they would be violating almost all the premises listed earlier in this essay. Islamic guidance is to help people find a balance between life's conflicting priorities. It is not static or predefined, but a dynamic search for an equilibrium. Whether in self-defense, to resist the evil of injustice and oppression, or to struggle toward a more just society, Islam requires its adherents to uphold certain norms and parameters. In the verse quoted above in which Muslims are urged to make ready their "strength to the utmost" of their power, one needs to take into account (a) the context of the entire Chapter, where it deals with treachery, hypocrisy and unilateral abrogation of a treaty that was imposed upon Muslims by their adversaries, and (b) the verse that comes after it.

'But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah' [Quran 9:61]."

C. Slay the non-Muslims

You did it again. You took one verse and took it out of context of the whole chapter.

"'And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].' (Qur'an 9:6-7)"[3]

The whole of Chapter 9 says to make a peace treaty with them.

D. Beheading.

This is Allah, not the Muslims themselves. This is their eternal torture in hell.

"'And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.'(Qur'an 8:17)"[4]

E. Fighting is prescribed, even if they dislike it

Chapter 2 in itself is about self-defense because several verses talk about not fighting when they want peace and to only fight when the opponents are the aggressors.


Islam only preaches attacking when you have to through self-defense, and if the opponents ask for peace, give them it.

Again, I am sorry for the short argument. I will try better next time.




I wish to thank my partner for the professionalism he has shown in this debate. I also apologize for the delayed response. With only 4 hours to spare, it may be tough typing up a coherent argument. This is a rebuttal to con’s opening argument.

I. What does Islam mean?

Islam does not mean peace; as my partner points out, it means submission. The Arabic word for peace is SaLaM, where as the submission is iSLaM. They are clearly two different words.[1] In fact, the Qur’an orders Muslims to submit to Allah, and it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are under Islamic rule.[2]


Muhammad never practiced what he preached. This is very clear in his “sayings” versus his “doings.” Let’s look at what Muhammad actually did.[3]

A. March 624: Al-Nadr bin al-Harith

Before Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622), he used to sit in the assembly and invite the Meccans to Allah, citing the Quran and warning them of God’s punishment for mocking his prophets. Al-Nadr would then follow him and speak about heroes and kings of Persia, saying, "By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have." Al-Nadr is referring to legends and opaque histories about Arabs of long ago and possibly to Bible stories about such figures as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which Muhammad told, but according to his own inaccurate versions. On other days al-Nadr would interrupt Muhammad until the prophet silenced him. In reply to al-Nadir’s harassment, it is possible (scholars sometimes have difficulties matching up Quranic verses with historical events) that Allah sent down these verses to Muhammad concerning him or certainly other mockers in Mecca, according to the account of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, who is considered a reliable transmitter of traditions:

25:6 Say [Prophet], "It was sent down by Him who knows the secrets of the heavens and earth. He is all forgiving and merciful." (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

83:13 ... [W]hen Our revelations are recited to him, he says, "Ancient fables!" 14 No indeed! Their hearts are encrusted with what they have done. 15 No indeed! On that day they will be screened off from their Lord, 16 they will burn in Hell, 17 and they will be told, "This is what you call a lie." (Haleem)

Muhammad did not take revenge on him—not yet—even though the verses in Sura 83 promise a dismal eternal future for mockers. Muhammad’s revenge was not long coming. It was al-Nadir’s bad fortune to join Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624. The story-telling polytheist was captured, and on Muhammad’s return journey back to Medina, Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, at Muhammad’s order, beheaded him, instead of getting some possible ransom money. He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans—all because they wrote poems and told stories critiquing Muhammad.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), pp. 136 (Arabic pages 191-92); 163 / 236; 181 / 262; 308 / 458. Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

Moreover, we beg the question: What is a child? According to Muhammad, it is anyone that has reached puberty! In fact, his men had the boys drop their pants so they can chop off the heads of anyone with pubic hair (Sahih Muslim 4390)[4]

Here, Muhammad killed two women:

“…two singing girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed…” (IbnIbn Ishaq/Hisham 819)

Greatly apologize, but I’m out of time.

[1] Darwich, Bassam. "Islam & Peace." Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <;.

[2] "TheReligionofPeace - Myths of Islam." Islam: Making a True Difference in the World. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <;.

[3] Arlandson, James M. "Muhammad's Dead Poets Society: The Assassination of Satirical Poets in Early Islam." Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <;.

[4] Found online:

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank my partner for takng the time to create an argument even when he has little time.

I. What does Islam mean?

"Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining. In a religious context it means "VOLUNTARY submission to God."[1] Islam means a voluntary submission to God. You are not forced. And the word derives from a word meaning peace.

The Qur'an does not call for the subjugation of peoples of other religions by Muslims themselves. It calls for Allah himself to domthe subjugating and to place all non-believers in hell. Especially by force. In fact, "Islamic history is full of such incidences where non-Muslims converted to Islam just because of the love, peace, justice and equality of the Muslim leaders."[2]

"There is no ground for the oft-repeated allegation that Islam is intolerant and was propagated by the sword.�The Qur'an states clearly 'there is no compulsion in religion.'"[3]

II. What did Muhammad do?

i. My opponent's first story. Was he beheaded because he criticized Muhammad? No. He was beheaded because he was one of the heads of his opposing army. He was his militarical enemy. This is what he did "Of all the people killed by Muhammad, Uqba was among those most worthy of punishment.�He ridiculed and tormented Muhammad while the latter was still in Mecca.�Indeed, Uqba was so disrespectful that he once spit in Muhammad's face, and he later fought the Muslims at Badr.�He is only listed here because of the particularly callous response that Muhammad gave him at his execution:�"When the apostle ordered him to be killed Uqba said, ‘But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?'�‘Hell,' he said."[3]

ii. My opponent's second story. This story is a little long, but it refutes my opponent's claim.

"Syed Maududi's commentary - Surah Anfal 8:56:
'This refers especially to the Jews. After arriving in Madina, the Prophet (peace be on him) concluded a treaty of mutual co-operation and good neighbourliness with them.'"

"Syed Maududi's commentary - Surah Anfal 8:56:
'But somehow the Jewish rabbis and scholars were irked by the Prophet's preaching of pure monotheism and moral uprightness, let alone his scathing criticism of the deviations which appeared in Jewish belief and conduct. They were constantly engaged, therefore, in efforts to sabotage the new religious movement. In this respect, they left no stone unturned. They collaborated with the hypocrites who were apparently an integral part of the Muslim body-politic. To serve the same end they fanned flames to rejuvenate the old animosities between the Aws and Khazraj which had brought about bloodshed and fratricide in pre-Islamic times. They attempted to hatch conspiracies against Islam in collaboration with the Quraysh and other tribes. What was all the more deplorable was that they indulged in these nefarious activities DESPITE their treaty of friendship and co-operation with the Prophet (peace be on him).'"

"Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 81:
'When the apostle of Allah had completed the Ditch, the Quraysh came and encamped at the confluence of the Ruma torrents. Their army consisted of 10,000 men, including their allies and followers; the Ghatafan, with their followers from Najd , also came and encamped in the direction of Uhud; and news came that the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza had broken their treaty with Muhammad. So the apostle of Allah marched out with his Muslims, amounting to 3,000 men in all, and encamped so that Sal was behind him and the Ditch in front, separating him from the enemy. He had ordered the children and the women to be shut up in the forts.'"

"Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani -� Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 4, Page 258:
'Their chief, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, himself traveled to Makkah and exhorted the disbelievers of Makkah to mount another attack on Muslims with fresh and full preparation in which the Jews of Medinah will be with them. This was the second breach of trust they committed against Islam.'"

"'All the men of Banu Qurayza were to be put to death and all the women and children were to be taken as slaves. Had they accepted Muhammad's decision, they would not have come to this fate, but they trusted more in their allies among men than in the mercy of Allah. Muhammad did not revoke the decision of Sad since he had sworn to abide by it, but he made one request. He stipulated that families should not be separated, and thus he taught his Companions: 'He who separates mother and child shall be separated from those he loves in the eternal life.' Before being put to death, the men of Banu Qurayza were offered Islam. Islam wipes clean what was before it, and whatever a man has done in ignorance before Islam is not held against him." (Ibid - Page 150)'"[4]

So not only did the Jews break the peace treaty with Muhammad, but they plotted to have him killed, his army destoryed, and his religion disbanded. The Jews also provoked tensions between the pagan and Muslim Arabs. They even mobilized an army against Muhammad. He was right to use force. And he was not the one making the punishment of death for all post-pubescent men but his commander, he could not have stopped it because he was sworn to abide by it.

As a parting note, "By nature Muhammad was generous and tolerant; he never bore a grudge, but did his best to mitigate the after-effects of what people did to wrong themselves. The Jewish tribes who had plotted to assassinate him were allowed to leave Medina and to take whatever they would with them except weapons. What he did was for protection rather than revenge. To all the Quraysh nobles who had persecuted him and the Muslims for years, he was to give a free pardon after the liberation of Mecca. The Quran says to him: "We have not sent you, except out of mercy to mankind. (Qur'an 21:107)"[4]

iii. My opponent's last story. The people were apostatized from Islam, and singing is something frowned upon in Islam. There must have been an underlying reason.

iv. My case. "In the history of Islam there is no such evidence that any real Muslim emperor or Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) used sword on innocent people to make them willing to convert to Islam"[2]

"Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) never used sword for her own sake or for the purpose of converting people without their will. He was the most humble, down-to-earth and peaceful man on the earth. In many incidences he asked from Allah forgiveness for those people who hurt him or caused inconveniences in his way. It is a fact that he never cursed the deadliest enemy. Even the angels asked him why not you curse that man who is constantly teasing you but he replied calmly that in doing so there will be no difference between me and him."[2]

"We all know that no one can truly convert a person from one belief to other by sword because may be a person will get converted as a protection from the danger but deep with in his heart he can never change by sword."[2]

Muhammad never used the sword against peoples of other religions and even on his own enemies.

III. Two Stories.

i. Mecca. "After conquering Makkah, Nabi Muhammad (saw) treated people so kindly that they all were surprised. No one could believe that a victor could treat the defeated party in this way.

However, after breaking the idols, Nabi Muhammad (saw) came out of Kaaba addressing the people of Makkah as such,

'O people! You were bad kinsmen and neighbors for me. You expelled me from my hometown and fought against me in an unmanly way. You did not spare any attempt to persecute me, my friends and my companions. You killed my uncle, Hamza ibn Abd Al-Muttalib. You fought against Allah's Messenger so I have the right to avenge myself on you. Based on this right, your men must be killed, your wives and children must be taken captive, your property must be seized by the conquerors, and your houses must be demolished. But I leave the judgment to you. What do you think?'"[5]

Muhammad spared the defeated even though they had persecuted his religion and his own family.�

ii. Jerusalem. �After the Muslims recaptured Jerusalem from the Christians during the Crusades, they committed an act that is still wondered at today.�

When the Christians took the city, they stormed in killing thousands of innocent Jews and Muslims. But when the Muslim retook the city, they spared the Christians, even though they had slaughtered thousands of their own people and religion.

These two stories show the tolerance of Islam to other religions, including other Monotheistic and even Polytheistic religions, even if the other religions had previously slaughtered their own people. These acts alone prove Islam is tolerant of other religions, does not murder others needlessly, and certainly does not breed terrorism.


Islam is misinterpreted, and whatever Muhammad did had a clear and good meaning. Islam is not a religion of terrorism. I would add more, but I am out of space.




I am sorry but I must skip this round. I am juggling 4 debates right nwo and have only 2 hours left. I am not forfeiting the entire debate, just this round.

Again, I greatly apologize to my parnter and should have my rebuttals up in a few hours once he replies.

Vote con for conduct.
Debate Round No. 4


It's ok. Arguments extended. Please do not post any new arguments, as I can not refute them. Voters, please do not vote on your bias. A vote without a valid RFD will be considered a VB on either side. I will await my opponent's final arguments.


I concede this debate. Good debate and vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cybertron1998 3 years ago
technically speaking one belief system can't legitimately say another belief system is wrong. there is no exceptions. even though some people think that their religion is the high and almighty they're just digging their own grave. Also, I have something for the guy who thinks islam is a religion of terrorism: You are a sick twisted bastard who believes every stereotype he heres
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
@Neonix, I forfeited because I had no time and am swamped with school work. School comes before debating. Anyway, I didn't want it to end up forfeiting so I thought it would be most humble to request a forfeit and a con vote.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
@neonix: He would have won? Want to debate?
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
It wasn't mass murder. It was retaliation. It was the Jews who broke the contract, then started a war on the Muslims. What were the Muslims supposed to do? Sit around and get their heads lobbed off? The early Muslims were territory hungry, just like any other empire. There were no threats during the war. It was just another one of the virtually endless wars for conquest. And the Muslims were very leinent even when the peoples they had vanquished had not been to them.

Let's see if I can't sum this story up since apparently you can't read. The Jews made a treaty with the Muslims. It was a non-aggression pact. Not only did the Jews break the treaty by fostering rebellion in the pagan Arabs, but they also assaulted the Muslims on numerous occasions. This was purely an act of self-defense. There is no questioning that. The sources come from the book of the era, non-biased and almost true. The Muslims were and still are tolerant of other religions. The basic message can very easily be interpreted as a treaty, which both sides respect (which may I add the Jews did not), and both sides would not kill eachother (which I may add again the Jews did not)

The "con" argument works for this reason. You must realize that virtually all empires did the exact same thing, but most of them did it more ruthlessly and broke treaties (which may I add the Muslims did not). While Muhammad was alive, the areas subjugated by the Muslims were not forced to convert. In fact, on the contrary, they were allowed to keep their old religions.

Your statements are misguided and come from someone who does not truly understand Islam and choose to interpret it by the deeds of a small few, not by the deeds of many.

I will be happy to debate this with you if you want.
Posted by Illusio 4 years ago
Isn't discussing the details of the various stories of mass murder of the early Jewish tribes somewhat missing the point? The point being the fact that the early Muslims expanded their power from a tiny settlement in Medina to encompass all of the Arabian Peninsula via threats and slaughter of people around them?

It's not surprising that the Muslims themselves try to justify these actions, but to a modern observer it seems incredibly hollow when one of the biggest imperialistic phenomena this planet has ever seen claim self defense as a reason for its offensive conquests. And speaking of "incredibly hollow", the sources for the information about what happened to the Jewish tribes are the Muslims themselves. We can expect such sources to be incredibly biased at best and pure fabricated propaganda documents aimed at psychological warfare at worst. The basic message can very easily be interpreted as a threat to "submit or die" IMO.

For that reason I don't think the "con" argument works in this case. It simply doesn't take into account the broader historical context in which the early Muslims were conquerors on a vast scale. Even while Mohammed was alive the Muslims conquered areas they had claim to(Except that Mohammed told them Allah had given them territory and loot, as mentioned in al Anfal and other places).
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Ron-paul (whut?) had a few grammatical errors.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 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: ff
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: concession...
Vote Placed by Neonix 4 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 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Microsuck! You won this debate! Why did you forfeit? requested by Pro, Con wins.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 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 Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.