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

Islam Is not a religion of violence and terror.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,210 times Debate No: 94099
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




After all these attacks by ISIS (whom are de facto islamic at best) people have had a twisted and generally bad view of islam. I'm going to argue that ISIS does not represent Islam through the teachings of the quran.

BoP is shared.


I am an ex-Muslim who will argue the opposite.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright, So let me begin by showing what is acceptable in islam in regards to violence. God (when I say God I am refering to Allah) commands his followers to not take a life that is foribidden except by legal right as it states in surah 6:151 and surah 17:33. So when is it not forbidden to take a life in islam?

- In self defense

-Against persecution and Oppression

as it states in surah 22:39-40

Fighting is no longer allowed if:

-The enemy offers peace

-If they cease from persecuting and attacking you

as it states in surah 4:90

Now let's see what ISIS has been doing.

-Isis is killing those who have not clearly and directly transgressed against islam as it is forbidden to transgress as it states in surah 2:190

-Isis is doing suicide bombings which are against the quran as stated in surah 4:29

-Isis is forcing people to convert to islam or die which is against the quran as it states in surah 2:256 [1]

We can see these clear contradictions in the teachings of God and the actions of ISIS and let's solidify the fact that ISIS is not islamic.

- They bombed the second holiest site in islam [2]

-More than 70000 clerics have issued a fatwa against isis [3]

With these, you can see how and why the Islamic community is almost entirely against the islamic community as they have clealry violated several teachings of the quran and have attacked almost indiscriminately including holy sites.

I shall await your rebuttal.




What you must understand is that Islam has a political aspect to it that deals with methodology of conquest under the banner of a single brotherhood, not to say Suni and Shia wouldn't fight each other right now, but they'd hold hands and blow each other kisses to destroy the infidel if neccessary to move forward the power of Islam. Islam is a religion built upon one single theme: Rule the world...

Pro: "Allah commands his followers to not take a life that is foribidden except by legal right as it states in surah 6:151 and surah 17:33. So when is it not forbidden to take a life in islam?"

First off the Quran is not the only written word of Islam. (Sunnah, hadith)

This is overidden by a concept called "abrogation". When a verse is abrogated, the one that replaces it is as good as or better than the one it is replacing:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?” (Qur’an 2:106).


Pro: "Now let's see what ISIS has been doing."

Yes, let's. They didn't come up with this crap from their own imaginations.

1)Beheading people.

(Quran 8:12) “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”

(47:4) “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds."

2)Terrorist activity vs the West.

(Quran 3:151) “We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.”

3)Genociding Christians in Middle East.

(8:39) “Fight them until the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

(8:60) “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

(9:5) “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

4)Making nonMuslims pay a tax.

(9:29) “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

5)Suicide bombings.

(9:111) (Paradise guaranteed to those who kill and are killed for Allah) “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”


"It's not an Islam thing."

But it is. Want proof?

Excerpt from article-

"During the 2016 New Year's Eve celebrations, hundreds of sexual assaults, rape, groping, and numerous thefts were reported in Germany, mainly in Cologne city centre." "All of the incidents involved women being surrounded and assaulted by groups of men on the street. There are more than 1,900 victims – 1,200 of whom were sexually assaulted – and police stated that at least 2,000 men were involved, acting in groups. Police reported that the perpetrators were men of "Arab or North African appearance" and said that Germany had never experienced such mass sexual assaults before."


Pro: "More than 70,000 clerics have issued a fatwa against isis."

This is a combination of many concepts, but to simplify I'll present basic concepts.


To simplify, there are almost 2 billion Muslims on Earth hellbent on the destruction of the West by command of Allah. Islam uses detailed deception to destroy and/or conquer its enemies. Takiya Takiya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It is a full fledged lie about who you are to infiltrate and destroy your enemy. It is pretending to actually be one of your enemy. (What Barack Obama is doing now)

Tawriya- Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.

Kitman- Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.

Muruna- Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. (What Huma Abedin, Sadiq Kahn, and the 9/11 hijackers do and/or did)

This is where you act somewhat assimilated to fool your enemy into trusting you to get power from the inside. A semi-mole, if you will.


To be rather forthright, due to the West's divisions, its all inclusive concepts of welcoming everyone, and laws against discrimination, etc, Islam is kicking Europe's as*, and there is nothing they can do to stop it per their own laws and passed legislation. Freedom is being used to destroy freedom.

Debate Round No. 2


You do not need to give me a lesson on different terms I can assure you I am familiar with most of them and if i don't i can look them up myself.

Surah 2:106 was NOT refering to abrogation in the quran it was refering to the past scriptures of the such as the torah, psalm and gospel This becomes evident if we read surah 5:12-13 and surah 2:101-2:106. Now let's look at this verse.

The word (nasakh) means to abrogate and some like to bring up surah 16:101 which says

"And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

But the arabic word for abrogate is not present in the actual arabic writing.

Here, there is no mention of nasakh either but instead the word corroborate which means to establish or strengthen with evidence. so it corroborates with the latter verses.

So as we can see here God did not "abrogate" anything in the quran just the past abrahamic books and writtings. This is further strengthened by surah 6:115.

Surah 8:12 is refering to the Battle of Bardr in the early 7th century when the arab pagans travelled far with around 1000 men to destroy the muslims. The muslims fled to makkah to avoid persecution but the pagans wanted to finish them off. This was a defensive war. And God was telling muhammad and his followers that they would win the battle.

Surah 47:4 This was also refering to a defensive war during the persecution of the muslims. These verses you are listing are during battles not just killing any unbelievers for simply unbelievers. These pagans are transgressors and God has commanded muhammaed to fight back.

Surah 3:151 is refering to hell which is waiting for non belivers

surah 8:39 is refering to self defense as well if we read 8:38 "Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed."

It's refering to those who have transgressed and if the transgressors stop then forgive them but if they persist then fight back. And the original verse utilised the word "fitna" to signify persecution.

8:60 also refering to a wartime scenario. if we read further at 8:61

"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

surah 9:5 i'm actually going to reference an article from TheAmericanMuslim which gave an exellent explenation for this. [1]


This verse, often called “the verse of the sword”, has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context:

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)"

So this verse actually refers to the pagans who broke the treat and kept fighting even during the periode of peace.

Surah 9:29 This one is interesting as verse context does not play much of a role but in my first argument to actually utilise this verse to justify violence the people must be transgressor against you and or the islamic religion.

This question was asked to sheikh hani al-jubayr a judge at the jeddah supreme court [2]

"Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?"

The judge answered "If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people."

The romans and the persians were aggressors. With context we can now see the verse was refering to aggression initiated against muslims.

9:111 is refering to dying in battle not blatant suicide bombings on civilians. The verse was emphasising the importance of being non material and fighting for allah even if death follows in battle against those who have transgressed against muslims.

How does the new years celeberation have anything to do with islam? yes some of these people came from areas where islam is prevalent but how does their actions which anyone regardless of religion who are weather demented or criminals could have done. Why when someone who is a muslim does something everyone has to assume it has something to do with thei religion? These were clealry hooligans and you have no evidence to support your claim that this has anything to do with islam. And surah 4:19 clearly prohibits the use of force against women such as this.


These are shia concepts and are not accepted by modern sunnis. shia only makes up around 10% of islam and most of the terrorism that is done right now is done by sunnis. These concepts are not backed by the quran.

So in conclusion to this round you clearly did not look up any verses for context it seems you simply went on and copied and pasted out of contexte verses.

I shall await your rebuttal.




"How does the new years celeberation have anything to do with islam? yes some of these people came from areas where islam is prevalent but how does their actions which anyone regardless of religion who are weather demented or criminals could have done."

Because no other group does it.

Excerpt from article-

-"A female Islamic professor has claimed that Allah has allowed Muslim men to rape non-Muslim women in order to 'humiliate' them, report stated."

"Suad Saleh, who is a professor from the renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, made the claims during an interview to a TV channel."



"And surah 4:19 clearly prohibits the use of force against women such as this."

As opposed to this?


“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”



"These are shia concepts and are not accepted by modern sunnis. These concepts are not backed by the quran."

Pro is using deceptive wording in his rebuttal. The Quran is not the only literature Muslims go by in their faith.(Sunna, hadith)

Taqiya is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances.

The basic principle of taqiya is agreed upon by the Sunni scholars, but they tend to restrict it to dealing with infidels and/or when they are under compulsion (ikrah).

In Sunni jurisprudence protecting one's belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called idtirar, which translates to "being forced" or "being coerced", and this word is not specific to concealing the faith; for example, under the jurisprudence of idtirar one is allowed to consume prohibited food to avoid starving to death. Additionally, denying one's faith under duress is "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".

"If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe."

In Hadith, in the Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, known as the Fath al-Bari, it is written that there is a consensus that whoever is forced into apostasy and then chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the approval to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, things not halal, then they should do that instead of choosing death.

After the end of the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula in 1492, Muslims were persecuted by the Catholic Monarchs and forced to convert to Christianity or face expulsion. The idea of taqiya became very important for Muslims during the Inquisition in 16th century Spain because it allowed them to "convert" to Christianity while staying as unspoken Muslims, practicing Islam in secret. In 1504, Ubayd Allah al-Wahrani, a Maliki mufti in Oran, issued a fatwa allowing Muslims to make extensive use of concealment so they could maintain their Muslim faith.



"Why when someone who is a muslim does something everyone has to assume it has something to do with thei religion?"

It depends what is done. If it's a nude clown offering children candy in an alley, no one assumes Islam.

If its tahhurush gamea, it's Islam. If it's a suicide bomber, it's Islam. Why? No one else ever does it. There were 452 suicide bombings in 2015. Guess how many were non-Muslims...

Al-Tabari comments on sura XVI, verse 106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122)

Debate Round No. 3


"Because no other group does it"

What are you even talking about literally everyone of every group is a potential rapist. This statement is just pure ignorance.

You act like these examples you have provided are somehow widely accepted by muslims in the aggregate which is absurd.

Ahh, I was waiting for you to bring up surah 4:34 and luckily I have a rebuttal for that as well.

We should all note that Arabic is a complex language and when translating to other languages that don't share similar writings systems and phonology some cconfusion can arrise.

The Arbaic word used in 4:34 is(idribuhunna) which comes from he word "daraba" which means to beat. But the thing is that arabic words that derive from "daraba" don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is similar to how we say "beat it" or "drop it" in english.

For example: surah 14:24 "Seest though not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? A goodly word like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, and it's branches (reach) to the heavens"

"Daraba" here had the meanining of "to give an example" If i say in Arabic daraba laka mathal" it means "give you an example"

The word "darabtum" , which is derived from the word "daraba" in surah 4:94 which means "to go abroad"

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do."

So "daraba" literally means "beat", "go abroad" or "give" but no to give by hand in the sense, but to provide an example

You should also notice that in surah 4 "God" used "daraba 4:34 and "darabtum" (4:94) which both have the same root. "God" used both of the words in the exact same chapter which clealry shows that "daraba" in surah 4:34 means to desert or to leave since that's what it's derived word meant in surah 4:94.

These should help solidify my point from other teachings in the quran and that hadith:

surah 2:231 "And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself. And do not take the verses of Allah in jest. And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and wisdom by which He instructs you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Knowing of all things."

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and cloth them, and do not beat them and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Numbers 2139)

And of course as i've previously stated, surah 4:19 "O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good."

With all this evidence, it should be easy to conclude that surah 4:34 did not, infact, refer to "beating" your wife.

When I said Taqiya was not allowed for sunnis I was refering to the way you described it. Taqiya was most famously used by the Hashashins against the sunnis and the crusaders. in this case, they did conceal their beliefs for their own gain. But this kind of Taqiya is not permited for sunnis.

as it says in surah 16:106 "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;"

This verse clearly states that you should not deny your own faith unless you are under danger of death and it also states that if you use this too lightly, then God will punish them.

Some other verses which support my point are:

Surah 4:135 which commands muslims to be steadfast and to uphold their belief and bear witness.

surah 9:119 commands muslims to be truthful

surah 33:24 God will punish the hypocrites and lyers and reward the truthful.

The islamic scholar Shaykh Shiq Illahi Madni Got tired of Shias using this tactic that he wrote a refutation of his own. sadly, it is too large to put in this debate so I will leave you a link to read for yourself.[1]

The quran does not permit muslims to lie for their own gains but simply for survival when under persecution.

You showing me stats on who affiliate with the islamic religion tend to commit the majority of terrorism is irrelvant. I am here to show why what they are doing is not permissible in the holy books.

So in conclusion, Con failed to counter-rebuttal my rebuttal of all the "transgressive" verses, He also failed to to counter my abrogation rebuttal. With these 2 points making the majority of my argument from round 3, I would say con either conceded those points or just blatantly ignored them.

For these reasons, I believe you should vote for pro.




"You showing me stats on who affiliate with the islamic religion tend to commit the majority of terrorism is irrelvant."

So...let me get this part right. Most terrorists being Islamic doesn't in anyway correlate to Islam. Some parasitic alien from the Andramada Galaxy must have implanted this crap into their minds.

If I said, "All these newborn babies are coming from females!" and they were, one could use common sense to correlate that females are probably the origin of where these babies are coming from...


Nearly 90% of Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women. Why?


According to the National Family Council report:

1)83% of Jordanian women approve of wife beating if the woman cheats on her husband. Why? What normal, sane person wants to be beaten? Someone who has been indoctrined to think that God approves of it.

2)60% approve of wife beating in cases where the wife burns a meal she's cooking.

3)52% approve of wife beating in case where she's refused to follow the husband’s orders.


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A powerful constitutional body in Pakistan proposed legislation last week that would allow husbands to "lightly beat" their wives who decline sex or refuse to wear what their mates prefer.

The Council of Islamic Ideology says it has to finalize the 160-page draft before it is sent to lawmakers in the Punjab province, the country's most populated region, for approval.

As well as beatings for wives who decline to have sex with their husbands, the document also advocates men use "limited violence" on spouses who do not bathe after intercourse or during menstruation.



The point? Western societies condemn spousal abuse. So do Oriental countries. But Islamic countries? Notta. Why? Because Allah told them to. Otherwise, if we say it has nothing to do with Islam, then we can say Middle Eastern men are genetically constructed to be violent, narcissistic psychopaths. Nope. Muhammed told them to.

Pro is trying to show Muhammed in a personality type that could and would never allow for beating women. Well let's take a peak.

-He beheaded 800 people at the Invasion of Banu Qurayza. (But he would never promote domestic abuse. No never.)

And had a 6 year old wife who he "thighed")

But he surely would not condone a little "beating" of your wife if she gets all liberalish...

Common sense 101:

Pro expects you to say hey, Muhammed masturbating a 6 year old and beheading 800+ is okay, but he came to his senses on beating wifes and did not permit it...


"surah 9:119 commands muslims to be truthful."

To each other. It's fine to lie all day long to the "infidels". Infidels don't count. Why?

(Quran 98:6)
“The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fires of Gehenna, where they shall dwell forever; they are the worst of creatures.”

And it's obviously true. This is why the West promotes freedom and equality while Islam beheads, genocides, stones, covers up its women but not the men, and slaughters thousands of live animals at the Hajj. Aaah, there's nothing better than being a child watching the slitting of a live camel's throat or tying a live goat to a board to torture it and watch blood squirt all over the place.


"He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and cloth them, and do not beat them and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Numbers 2139)

Pro is using the defeating psychological mentality used by many abused women.

"Muhammed said he loved me in verse 1, thus I can ignore his hatred and violence in verse 2 because I need him and want his love. Thus, I will ignore all of the bad things he did."

Muhammed loved no one including himself. This is why he was suicidal and aimed to toss himself off of a cliff. He was a psychologically disturbed man.

"The Arbaic word used in 4:34 is(idribuhunna) which comes from he word "daraba" which means to beat. But the thing is that arabic words that derive from "daraba" don't necessarily mean "hit""

Pro's quote-
So "daraba" literally means "beat", "go abroad" or "give" but no to give by hand in the sense, but to provide an example."

Now use common sense to try and insert either alternate meaning into the verse.

Pro's last ditch effort is deception. What he is claiming:

1)Doesn't match into the surrounding context of the verse or even make sense.

2)Is the equivalent of a non English speaking person reading the translation of "screw you", and an English speaking person saying, "Well, screw can mean a metal fastening device with spirals and a point." Now try to fit "a screw" into the context of "screw you." It's illogical and a false claim by Pro. This is the silent stage of jihad where Muslims try to convince non-Muslims they are peaceful, by essentially lying about what things might mean, pretending to be peaceful, etc etc to hold the infidel at bay until Islam gains more influence and power in the region. Once it does, Islam becomes militant, waging jihad by force, as can be seen in Islamised parts of Europe.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: RonaldTrumpkin// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: f*ck christians

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by Saberen 2 years ago
@DavidMGold surah 6:115 "And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." The quran does not abrogate itself that would mean it contradicts itself and contradicts surah 6:115. My explanation Shows that the Abrogation was in reference to past abrahamic writings. Please re read my argument.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
You are completely wrong about abrogation and I was amazed that your opponent hasn't done a better job of completely demolishing your claims. For example, your claim that no verse of the Qur'an has been abrogated is demonstrably false and ignorant. Sahih Muslim: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part with the other." When you're done here, by all means, come have a real debate. Young, radical and wholly uninformed... a Marxist has taken up the cause of Arab theocracy with all its imperialistic ambitions.
Posted by Saberen 2 years ago
@JesusIsGodForever I provided a rebuttal to surah 2:29 and if he brings up surah 3:34 i have one for that as well.
Posted by JesusIsGodForever 2 years ago
I would say ISIS are just following what the Qu'ran says. Eg. Surah 9:29 - (It says to fight unbelievers until they pay tax) or Surah 4:34 - (Lets Muslims beat their wives)
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Well it will not change realety or this.
Posted by Saberen 2 years ago
These comments are why I am doing this debate.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Islam is a religion of violence and terror. If it did not use violence and terror it would not exist.
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Pro is about to get introduced to some new concepts and terminology.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
The Pro side is right. Islam is not a religion of terror and violence, it's a medieval style death cult of terror and violence. Ban it in the West completely.
No votes have been placed for this debate.