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

Islam Religion Should Be Condemned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 76618
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Personally, I am not racist. But in this debate, I cannot stop myself to and really hate the Islam rules.

Here are some Islam beliefs:

  1. Apostasy in Islam is death penalty [1]
  2. So what's the death penalty? It's beheading! [2]
  3. All marriages both parties are to be Islam, otherwise the other party must convert

  4. All children bore by the Islam parents are required to be Muslims

  5. Theft punishment is amputation if convicted
    What the hell is this? [3]

  6. Does not welcome practice of foreign religions
    Not only Iran/Saudi Arabia, but all countries that are Islamic Republic persecute Christians, especially.
  7. Muslims are disallowed to consume alcohol
    So what if they drink? No, it will won't be a fine, but a public flogging (40-80 lashes)! [4]

  8. Prayers are very regular, 5 times a day [5] + obligation to go to Mosque every day (for men only)

  9. Discourage women from driving cars
    It's illegal actually.

  10. Girls are banned for sports because they may lose their virginity
    Oh, running loses virginity, well done! [6]

[1] :
[2] :
[3] :
[4] :
[5] :
[6] :


The following is a reluctant defense of Islam, as I find most organized religions to be less than reputable with respects to their ancient texts' morals and punishments, but here you go Islam.

Yes, Islam's penalty of death for apostasy is as unreasonable as the Jewish/Christian bible's penalty of death for a woman who wasn't a virgin on her wedding night. Deuteronomy 22:13-22
Actually it's exactly as unreasonable as the bible's punishment of death for apostasy Deuteronomy 13:6-13:10 and Exodus 22:20.

Still doesn't mean the religions should be sentenced to a punishment, or condemned.
For every absurdity in Islam, you can find just as many in Christianity and Judaism. But because we value freedom of religion, these religions shouldn't be punished for their obvious penal absurdities.

If you're going to say that Islam needs to be condemned, you might as well condemn most of the modern day religions for the exact same reasons. Also I would like to point out in a country that is 87% Muslim, Indonesia, Muslim women can drive, Christians are welcome, and they even have girls' sports.

So if we can have a massively Islamic country--so dominated by the very religion you claim should be condemned for its unreasonable rules--without all of the unreasonable rules you presented, we must conclude that the unreasonableness isn't particular to Islam, it's particular to people who decide to follow the unreasonable rules.

I reject the claim that Islam, specifically, should be condemned or sentenced to any punishment by virtue of its unreasonable rules, because to do so would require the same treatment for most current religions, including Christianity, which would not allow for freedom of any religion. There's nothing special about Islam's unreasonableness in the realm of religions; it's just another silly belief, that I believe should be protected and not sentenced to a punishment.
Debate Round No. 1


I hope @MagicAintReal can do this debate in a civilised manner, although subject by itself is not good. I am willing to do this seriously and accept public criticism against me.

I do not know about Jewish/Christian, but what I can assure is that now, apostasy in any other religions are legal, no more laws that support outlawing.

I do not find absurdity in Christian/Judaism, particularly punishments/consequences. Every religion has its own prayer type, so I cannot comment. However, punishments/consequences I will debate, which is under this debate.

Those laws are unrelated to Islam religion
Yup, I thought of this before. However, there is a thing which proves that the laws are by Islam, not national leaders: Sharia laws

These laws, are the culprit of unreasonable punishments like amputation for theft.

Christian or other religions also does not support freedom of religion like Islam
Well, this is truly false. Look at those Christian countries: United States, Brazil, Mexico, etc. They do not have such laws except for the main (1): Vatican City

Now look at how many countries have such laws: Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arabic Emirates, Qatar, etc.

Since I have some extra spaces, let me reply to some comment debates:
"Discourage woman from driving car is prejudice and is untrue"
Here is the evidence:'s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

So, yes, your Saudi Arabia is prejudice, according to what you accused, @AllahoAkbar.

"Islam welcome practices of foreign religions"
This is ridiculous. Look at an Islam Republic country: Malaysia
The authorities seized bibles, and a Perkasa chief threatened to burn bibles. At the end, he could not be prosecuted because he was defending Islam.

About Islam Theft Amputation (reply to @AllahAkbar)
Islam also has its own jail? Cool, the jail is air-conditioned and has a set of TV channels? I did not know the religion itself is so wealthy.

Well, for other religions, we do not cover jails. The jails are belong to the national government, and they normally they are not air-conditioned except those VIPs. As the VIPs too expensive, most inmates stay in the normal cell, therefore, no air-condition.

This gives them a chance to repent, turn over a new leaf unless the crime committed is severe. Nonetheless, now we have human rights. I cannot think of any crime that is amputation except the Sharia laws.
Disclaimer:: All the things I said are true, and can be supported by evidences. As I have already provided a lot, I think it is unnecessary for me to continue providing detailed evidences in replies. If needed, I can co-operate too.


Your problem with Islam is that it takes the ridiculous ideas and punishments common to other religions and puts them into modern practice. You are giving agency to Islam, as if it holds responsibility, for the actions of unreasonable people.

Let's have a thought experiment.
I know a guy who doesn't let his daughter or wife drive, because they are women. He also tells them that if they get married, it better be to someone that shares his religious beliefs. He further explains that if either of them ever has a child, that child has to share his religious beliefs as well. What religion is this man?

If you're a bigot, and you don't use logic regularly, you will conclude by the association fallacy that this man is Muslim. Per the association fallacy, just because he shares the similar unreasonable characteristics of Islam, doesn't make him Muslim. In fact, this is someone I actually know, and they are...Christian.

Also you said that Vatican City, a very Christian country, does not support freedom of religion. Yet, you keep defending Christian countries. With your logic, you should be trying to condemn Christianity.

I also noticed you dodged my question about a massively Muslim country, Indonesia, that does not follow the ridiculous laws of which you speak. Also the majority of countries, Egypt, U.A.E., Indonesia with sharia law have MIXED SYSTEMS, such that modern laws replace ridiculous sharia laws, and any of the reasonable sharia laws can stay. Yeah, and those countries are real Muslim.

So even though you think you have provided a lot of "detailed evidence", and that it is unnecessary for you to provide more evidence, you still need to respond to the:
*association fallacy of unreasonable ideas = Islam
*Indonesia's lack of unreasonable rules though they are largely Muslim
*Why are Islam's unreasonable law practices any different than Vatican City's unreasonable Christian practices?
*...If you do conclude Islam's unreasonableness is not any different than Christianity's, then why do you feel the need to defend Christian countries?
*Why should a religion like Islam, that can be followed peacefully and whose negatives are comparable to religions that shouldn't be condemned, be condemned?
Debate Round No. 2


About Giving Agency to Islam
No, I did not.
It is the fact that those unreasonable laws are the sharia laws, and sharia laws are Islam beliefs.

"Thought experiment"
That scenario cannot applied to this case, but should be applied to: Islam laws are unique

Yes, Vatican City is a country with some characteristics similar to ALL ISLAMIC REPUBLIC countries
It is because that is the main Christian country. However, all other sub-Christian countries are reasonable.
As for Islam, that's a different case. The unreasonableness not only happen in a main country, but also happen in all sub-Islam countries.

By the way, my "Christian unreasonableness" is not really anything except the freedom of religion law there. But my "Islam unreasonableness" include all of its unreasonable laws, as mentioned at the start.

Yup, but not all Sharia laws are replaced, but these laws still remain: apostasy, marriage, child religion inheritance, unwelcome of foreign religions, disallow of alcohol consumption, too regular prayers.

Persecution against Christian is still like any other Islamic Republic countries.

Association of fallacy ideas = Islam
I strongly disagree against this. All the above unreasonable laws are not my creativity but facts, supported by evidences provided.

Condemnation Islam but not other religions
Again, my "unreasonableness of Christian", nothing else other than the freedom of religion in the main Christian country, Vatican City. I have no other bad thoughts about Christian, and cannot find anything else to condemn.

But for Islam, I have named up a lot of laws/beliefs by Islam, and collectively, Islam should be condemned.

And I disagree Islam to be a peaceful religion, it is a religion that has the largest number of terrorism groups.


Your resolution gives agency to Islam, because your resolution is not "unreasonable laws should be condemned"...your resolution isn't even "religions with unreasonable laws should be condemned"...your resolution isn't even "Sharia law should be condemned"...No, no, no....You boldly and specific claim Islam should be condemned. Usually things are condemned for something they have done. Agents typically do things. If Islam isn't the agent of unreasonable laws, then why should we be condemning it?

You say "Persecution against Christian is still like any other Islamic Republic countries."
How about an Islamic country whose christian members of the government persecuted Muslims. Look up President Suharto of Indonesia. You will probably specially plead this case of Christians persecuting Muslims and say it's not as a frequent as Islamic persecutions of Christians, or because it wasn't persecution under sharia law it's not as bad, or somehow when Islam persecutes it's worse than when Christianity persecutes. You still have to deal with the fact that the very thing you hate about Islam is something to be hated about most religions, even Christianity, which is why I disagree with the resolution that Islam should be condemned, because the resolution is way too exclusionary.

Now, proving that other religions are unreasonable does not reject the resolution, I realize that, but it does illustrate the implication of the resolution that these atrocities are specific to Islam. Again, you didn't say "religions with unreasonable laws" should be condemned, so your resolution seems to fall under the logical fallacy of special pleading. If I may illustrate the fallacy.

Thee deep structure of your position is though Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have unreasonable laws and have or had governments which persecute other religions' people because of these laws, only Islam should be condemned.

Earlier in the debate you said, "[Christianity does] not have [unreasonable laws] except for the main (1): Vatican City"
then later you say "Again, my "unreasonableness of Christian", nothing else other than the freedom of religion in the main Christian country, Vatican City."
This is special pleading again. Why does being the main country of a religion excuse it from being unreasonable. Indonesia is the world's largest population of Muslims and doesn't have a government that suppresses freedom of religion like Vatican City. So in this case, Islam shouldn't be condemned, because it clearly lead to a more reasonable government than that of Vatican City. Also, any atrocities committed by Indonesia should be excused per your argument that it is the main country of that religion.

You also say, "And I disagree Islam to be a peaceful religion, it is a religion that has the largest number of terrorism groups."
Research Islamic terrorist groups and look at their motivations. Most of them are political/economical.
Debate Round No. 3


Islam agency
The laws are their Islamic beliefs since they were referenced through the Qur'an, thus, condemnation against Islam religion itself is more accurate.

Islam Persecution
If you realised, that was in the past. His president position ended in 1998. If I were to condemn the past, I would have condemn Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Japan, etc.

But let me be clear, even if that happens now, I would not condemn Christianity because that is not Christian's belief but the stupid national leader's belief.

Vatican City excuses in this
I have excused the holy country of Christian because it is rightful for them to defend Christians since the country is dedicated for Christians.

I do not excuse Indonesia because even though Indonesia has the largest Muslim population country, it is not the main country of Islam since it has 6 official religions, in other words, it is a mixed religion country.

Another reason to excuse it from being the main country of Islam because the origin of Islam is from those Middle East areas: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iran, etc.

My biases against Islam
As mentioned, the Islam laws are also beliefs as referenced from the Koran, so, it cannot be compared to other specific Christian/Judaism countries since those are national laws.


So, I'm assuming Pro agrees with me that he was in fact assigning agency to Islam, though he claimed earlier in the debate that he did not; if I am misrepresenting Pro, please let me know.

Under "Islam agency" Pro wrote "The laws are their Islamic beliefs since they were referenced through the Qur'an, thus, condemnation against Islam religion itself is more accurate."
Ok so I was waiting for the Q word (Qur'an) to pop up, because I had mentioned the bible atrocities, and I figured that was your opportunity to dig on in, but here it is.
If you think condemnation of Islam because of the Qur'an is more accurate than condemnation of Judaism/Christianity because of the bible, you haven't read the bible.

Straight from the bible
Samuel 1 15:3--God's cool with genocide
Psalms 135:8 & 136:10--God is commended for committing infanticide
These next laws in Leviticus are punishable by death
" Eating any animal which walks on all fours and has paws (11:27)
" Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
" Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
" Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
" Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
" Trimming your beard (19:27)
" Getting tattoos (19:28)
" Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
" Mistreating foreigners " "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born" (19:33-34)
" Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
" Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
" Selling land permanently (25:23)
Does this deserve condemnation too?

Pro then says per my comment of Muslims being persecuted by christian members of the Indonesian government--
"If you realised, that was in the past. His president position ended in 1998. If I were to condemn the past, I would have condemn Adolf Hitler."
Yeah I did realise, intentionally spelled with an s instead of a z, it was in the past because it didn't happen now and the future hasn't occurred, so I'm left with the one option...Ok so if you don't condemn the past, then you can't condemn Islam's unreasonableness, because by definition it has happened in the past, starting now...and now...

Also I am going to end this round with a quote from Pro that I would like to use to illustrate a point.
Pro stated "But let me be clear, even if [persecution by Christians of other religions] happens now, I would not condemn Christianity because that is not Christian's belief but the stupid national leader's belief."
EXACTLY. A stupid national leader's beliefs should not affect our condemnation of that religion. Let me take your quote and just change Christianity to Islam.
But let me be clear, even if that happens now, I would not condemn Islam because that is not Islam's belief but the stupid national leader's belief.
If you can't exercise that same logic for Islam, you are special pleading yet again.
Debate Round No. 4


Islam agency
@MagicAintReal seems to be spreading propaganda or reading comprehension skill is too weak. I believe all other readers here understand if was assigning agency to Islam.

Qur'an vs Bible
The sentences picked from the bible seem to be heavily prejudiced.

Let's look at the first one:
"Eating any animal which walks on all fours and has paws (11:27)"

We concentrate on the number, 11:27 (

Look at the result, perhaps we use the New International Version.
Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening.

It is also worth mentioning that those are unreferenced, thus, cannot be trusted. According to Wikipedia, it is not punishable by death:

Islam is the past, starting from now is different
I strongly disagree against this and Sharia Laws still exist in Islamic Republic states. Most Sharia Laws are unreasonable, so extinction of those laws would be great since in these modern days we already have standard crime laws (plus those International Laws).

Christian on the other hand is different, the laws are not used in these days, they are extinct. Otherwise, name me out a Christian country that still uses the laws.

Existence of Sharia Laws are the national leaders stupidity
Again, I strongly disagree this and I have reasoned: those Sharia Laws are Islam beliefs.

And for you, you would be condemning all Islamic Republic countries, that would be a poll: Should we condemn Islam religion or all Islamic Republic states.

Unfortunately, I have just rebuked above (multiple times).


Pro still never provided any reason for why Islam the religion--not sharia law, not Islamic republics--should be condemned.

Also, I was unaware that I needed to cite the bible. Can't people just look it up?
Use this link for my bible quotes.

It stands that even if the violations do not receive the death penalty in some cases, the laws are still ridiculous. Why should a woman be put to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Also, I will cite the same link Pro did, because everyone should take a look at some more ridiculous bible laws, that don't deserve condemnation from Pro.

This is just like the religion Islam you claim should be condemned. You are special pleading. I reject the claim that Islam the religion should be condemned, because the reasons Pro provided for condemnation of Islam are indistinguishable from the reasons Pro claims are acceptable with Christianity.

The reason Pro has not met his burden of proof is that Pro has failed to provide evidence for why Islam, the religion in total, is worthy of condemnation, and instead has made multiple attempts to condemn sharia law and Islamic republic states.

Islam the religion and Islamic republic states are not reciprocal. Neither are Islam and governments endorsing sharia law. Islam the religion can exist without governments endorsing sharia law and Islamic republic states, therefore condemning Islam does not necessitate condemning governments who endorse sharia law or Islamic republic states.

I know Con is supposed to forfeit this round, but I needed to cite the bible, and to reiterate that the resolution does not contain "Islamic republic states" or "governments endorsing sharia law" should be condemned.

Pro has used special pleading to excuse Christianity of its obvious sharia law-like rules, and inconsistently condemn Islam for the same thing.

If we condemn or sentence Islam to a punishment for unreasonableness, there is a slippery slope to anti freedom of religion; the freedom to believe in unreasonableness without condemnation should be given to all religions.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
Finished reading this, should have a vote up tonight.
Posted by XPMai 1 year ago
Condemnations don't restrict freedom of religions, it's just expressing of disapproval unless the followers are unfaithful, immediately switch to other religions after I've won this debate.

And it's great to restrict Islam since they've nothing better than other religions.

To me, I don't know if gods really exist, so having some beliefs is safe if gods really exist. However, it's intolerable if the beliefs are beyond limit.

And how I define "beyond limit"?

It's those gibberish laws/requirements.

But why I let Christianity go this round? It's because their laws/requirements are soon extinct, in fact I didn't know they exist although I know some of their bad stories in the past forcing people to convert.

Since it's over, I've nothing to condemn.

But for Islam, I sympathise the followers although they're fine with those Sharia laws since their ancestors were Muslims.

Look at this:

Yes, it's fake. But, these pictures meet the Sharia laws, and those laws are still active PROUDLY. So, you should be able to imagine more situations like that in real life that isn't recorded in the camera.

The belief is fine, and many Muslims are fine too, yes, I'm too busybody Nevertheless, the victims are not fine with these, they're FORCED. And, these are against human rights.

I'm not a Muslims, and I don't practise all these yet I can feel it. If I'm a Muslim, I'll be really suffering badly.

You seem to be an atheist but tried to debate against me although I know your stance. Actually I want to hear the real thoughts of the Muslims to debate against me, not technically my condemnation is unfair/fair/correct/wrong.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Can you reduce the voting period time? Really? 178 days?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Yeah and it's a little subjective, so the numbers aren't facts, but they give us an idea that both religions are filled with absurdities. So to only condemn one of them specifically seems incomplete, and if you agree with condemning both of them, you would have to apply that same "absurdities deserve condemnation" logic to most modern religions. To me, ridiculousness is a characteristic of religions, and religions are protected from condemnation per freedom of religion.
Posted by XPMai 1 year ago
If you compare the passages/total verses with percent difference, you'll realise that it's huge.

Thus, bible has more verses/passages than Qur'an (I don't know all these). Hence, it's unfair to compare the numbers directly.

The accurate way to compare is by the percentage and it has proven bible is only 2.17% while Qur'an is 5.34%.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago

Actually counts violence in the bible VS the Quran...check it out
Posted by XPMai 1 year ago
After considering your statements, I understood what you meant (since the time when I said I could condemn Christianity in the future).

However, I don't think that's a good reason to be used to against condemnation of Islam because it's kind of off-topic/personal opinion/jealous.

But if we compare <i>Christian gibberish</i> laws VS <i>Islam gibberish laws</i>, it's obviously <i>Christianity gibberish laws</i> are better.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Ok, point taken about people following governments, but sharia laws just like the kosher laws, and the old testament laws, don't equate to all that believe in those religions. Lots of bad messages from the bible penned by mark, luke, john...We don't hold Christianity to the scrutiny of Islam, because recently Christians have not made a concerted terrorist effort. Still all of those religions are crazy, and should be regarded thusly.
Posted by XPMai 1 year ago
I can also excuse Islam unreasonable laws and blame it on the government's stupidity, but it's wrong to blame all 47 Islamic Republic countries.

You may be surprised that majority of the Muslims agree all the Islam facts. Whatever the religious leader says they believe. Thus, only a small group of them disagree.
And I've already said: Sharia laws = Islam beliefs ---> because they're all in Qur'an = messages from God penned by Muhammad
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Because you excused Christianity with special pleading even though it is as inherently unreasonable with laws to govern people as Islam. Your resolution was just worded wrong, you should have had it be Islamic Republic States with sharia law should be condemned. Most modern Muslims don't want their religion's laws a part of the government.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 10 months 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: But how much should Islam be condemned?
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year 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: Seems pretty straightforward to me. Pro had, essentially, one argument: that Sharia Law and current implementation of it should be taken as equal to the Islamic religion itself, and therefore Islam should be condemned. Con's responses never really get much coverage, though. He talks about how applying this specifically to Islam is special pleading because other religions employ similar views of what should and should not be allowed. He shows that not all nations with large Muslim populations succumb to use of Sharia Law. He explains that Islam cannot have agency and therefore should not be condemned, but rather the practices associated with it and the leaders who enforce them should. It's the last of those that I'm voting on. When Pro's not really giving me any reason to believe that Islam has agency and therefore can be condemned, and when I'm given something else that I can clearly condemn without that problem, that just seems like the better alternative. Hence, I vote Con.