The Instigator
Mirza
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
xxx200
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Islam does not oppose pluralism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,745 times Debate No: 22074
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

Mirza

Pro

Resolved: Islam does not oppose a pluralistic society.

Definitions


Islam: A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God. [1]

Pluralism: A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society. [2]

Rules
  1. Round 1 is for acceptance. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments and rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebuttals only.
  2. Sources cannot substitute arguments, only support them. Sources must be posted in debate rounds only.
  3. No semantic arguments, personal attacks, and deliberate misrepresentation of opponent's position are allowed. These acts, including forfeit, count as conduct violation.

The debate will focus on verses from the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari/Muslim hadith. This is not a debate about current Islamic societies and their politics, nor the deeds of regular Muslims. The foundation of Islam consists of the Qur'an and the deeds of the beloved Prophet Muhammad. We will discuss whether or not Islam opposes a society where tolerance for different groups of people (i.e., religious, ethnic, etc.) is present.


References


[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
xxx200

Con

i accept it.
Debate Round No. 1
Mirza

Pro

Con has accepted the definitions and rules that were established in Round 1. Our primary sources will be the Qur'an and the hadith collections of Sahih Bukhari/Muslims. Some other collections of hadith are acceptable too. Because the passages are often very long, which takes a lot of space, I will mostly refer to them by citing chapter and verse numbers from the Quran and the hadith. Readers should look up the Quranic verses from the first source. [1]

Arguments

Islam strictly advocates peace

One of the major obligations of a Muslim is that he should be well-behaved and show kindness toward everyone. There's no place in the Quran which suggests otherwise. In fact, there are innumerable verses scattered throughout the Quran which command Muslims to respect other faiths, tolerate other people, and protect freedom of religion. One such verse is found in [Quran 2:256]: "Let there be no compulsion in religion." Should that not be enough for deniers of the apparent promotion of religious freedom, there is as much as a whole Quranic chapter that is solely promoting tolerance of other religions, and freedom thereof. It's chapter 109, and it ends with: "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

Islam deals with two kinds of laws: The personal law (i.e., moral code) and the religious law, which is applied in an Islamic state. The general Islamic term for these laws is 'Sharia,' meaning 'The Path.' Despite the fact that Islamic Law can be practiced in two ways, there is no difference as to how non-Muslims should be treated. Whether a Muslim resides in a completely anarchist society or a devout Islamic state, he is obliged to show kindness and tolerance toward all kinds of peoples. This is undoubtedly with accordance to the Quran, as mentioned in [60:8]: "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."

Non-Muslims are an integral part of an Islamic society as taught in the Quran and the hadith. They are allowed to participate in politics, exercise same freedom of speech as Muslims, have fewer economic burdens than Muslims, etc. They are even allowed to have their own laws, such as marital laws. A non-Muslim couple who are married to one another with accordance to their own tradition are to be recognized as married by the Islamic state. In short:

  1. Non-Muslims are recognized as 'dhimmi,' which refers to people who are under a contract of protection by the Islamic state.
  2. People who are capable of paying the jizya tax can possibly be obliged to do so. This is because Muslims are obliged to pay the yearly religious charity (i.e., zakat) and attend obligatory services, such as joining the military. Because non-Muslims are excluded from these obligations, they can recompense by paying taxes to the Muslims government so that it can fund protection for the non-Muslims and have resources to preserve their rights. The expenses of the Muslim zakat by far outweighs the jizya. There is no discrimination of injustice involved.

Free market, no social classes

Islam does not recognize division of people based on skin color, nationality, culture, or anything similar. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) made a famous statement concerning race: "O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety." A pluralistic society strictly requires a dismissal of dividing people by social classes, and Islam opposes such divisions. Nobody could say it more clear than the Prophet did it on his final sermon.

An important thing to note is that Islam promotes the concept of a free market. This enables every individual, regardless of his race, religion, etc., to become prosperous in any true Islamic society. It is also promotes intercultural peace because societies become economically dependent on one another, thus preventing them from waging war. [2]

There is no doubt that Islam promotes the most generous human rights to all of humankind in any given society. Muslims must be tolerant toward non-Muslims in any given situation. I've covered a lot of important areas, and I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://quran.com...

[2] http://www.freetrade.org...

xxx200

Con

1] Islam strictly advocates peace

the ayats of koran can be divided into two classes: mecca and madina. the ayats that appeared in mecca are peaceful but the ayats that appeared on madina are violent. these madina ayats make it a duty to all muslims that they should kill infidels (kuffar) wherever they found them(kuffars).

the application of these ayats are very logical. where muslims are outnumbered by non muslims, there peaceful mecca ayats are applicable.examples are europe, america, india, china etc. but where muslims outnumbered non muslims there violent madina ayat are applicable. now you see in islamic countries where muslims are majority, the conditions of non muslims are terrible. examples are iraq, iran, saudi arabia, bangladesh and pakistan. nice strategy musses.

so islam does not advocate peace at all.

2] Free market, no social classes

really? why then shia muslims fight against sunni muslims? why then dividing the entire human race into 2 classes: kuffar and momin? and if free market advocated by islam really brings prosperity then why in islamic country some people are rich and some people are poor?

i think you better do some research before you post argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Mirza

Pro

Rebuttals


Islam strictly advocates peace, no social classes

Con has ignored most of my arguments from this section. He argues that the verses of the Quran can be divided into two classes. It is true that verses that were revealed when the Prophet came to Medina mention fighting more than the earlier verses. However, Con has not cited them - so I cannot go in detail on all verses and explain their history. What's more, Con hasn't showed us why the verses that were revealed in Mecca don't count.

Additionally, it is important not to ignore the reason why there was a difference in the messages of the Meccan and the Medinan verses. The reason why Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) migrated to Medina in the first place was to avoid being assassinated. "It was migration from a plot that was set by the leaders of the Quraysh who were plotting to kill prophet Muhammad, and to destroy the truth that today is being conveyed to mankind everywhere against tyranny and injustice. Their purpose was to destroy the foundation of the Islamic state, the Sunnah of the tradition of the prophet, and to prevent the revelation being delivered by Allah's messenger to mankind." [1]

In Medina, the Pagans and Jews did nothing to stop much their oppression and persecution of Muslims. Because the Muslims faced these challenging times, they needed some strong guidance. Their best guidance was the Qur'an. That's why it commanded Muslims to fight in certain ways. However, the Qur'an never calls for an aggressive war on anyone. Even the Medinan verses explicitly call for self-defense only.

Coming to social classes, the sunni/shia conflict has nothing to do with Islamic beliefs in social classes. Moreover, the division of Muslims and non-Muslims isn't taking the rights away of anyone, but securing them. Making non-Muslims have freedom of choice that Muslims don't have isn't dividing anyone into social classes (i.e., by discrimination).

[1] http://www.aljazeerah.info...

xxx200

Con

1] What's more, Con hasn't showed us why the verses that were revealed in Mecca don't count.

they don't count because according to islamic law, if there is conflict between 2 verses, later verses will be preferred to former verses. this means, on conflict, medinan verses would be preferred to meccan verses. this means violence would be preferred to peace. so peaceful verses don't count.

2]it is important not to ignore the reason why there was a difference in the messages of the Meccan and the Medinan verses.

the reason pro gives is ridiculous because muhammad himself killed all those who don't accept islam. he attacked tribe after tribe, kill all men: these are not self defence at all because none of those pagan tribe ever tried to assassinated muhammad.

just go through these links and you will discover yourself how much self defensive muhammad can be:

http://www.flex.com...

http://www.flex.com...

http://www.flex.com...

http://www.flex.com...

3]Coming to social classes, the sunni/shia conflict has nothing to do with Islamic beliefs in social classes.

why not?

4] division of Muslims and non-Muslims isn't taking the rights away of anyone, but securing them.

really? this division taking the right to life granted to the non muslim away from them towards muslims. in any muslim country, non muslims are treated like 3rd class citizens. this division really matters.

islam opposed pluralism from its very begining.
Debate Round No. 3
Mirza

Pro

Once again, Con has ignored almost every single point I made. In addition to this, he violated the rule of sources which states that "Sources cannot substitute arguments, only support them." The links that Con provided give arguments that he didn't make on his own. He used the sources as his arguments, which is wrong. I'll analyze it further.



Rebuttals

Islam strictly advocates peace

Everyone should note that Con did not cite any verses from the Quran to support his arguments. The violence in the Quran that he refers to is nothing but call for self-defense. The problem with Con's response is that it is extremely short, and for me to make my point strong I have to simply use the verses that he cites and show that they don't call for aggression, but self-defense. Since he cited none, I'll do the favor and show how the Quranic verses are taken out of their textual and historical contexts.

Quran, chapter 8, verse 60: "Against them [i.e., the unbelievers] 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 ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly."

This is a perfect example of a verse that is taken completely out of its textual context. Verse 60 in chapter 8 seems to say that Muslims should prepare an army against unbelievers, and wage war against them. However, the verse right after, which is 8:61, says the following: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

Judging the Quranic verses merely from their textual contexts, we get the image that every time the Quran calls for fighting, it does it only in terms of defense and to stop oppression of innocent people. Had the Quran been calling for aggressive use of arms, there would have been no such verse as "Accept peace if the enemy offers peace." Since there are tons of such verses, we can easily conclude that the Quran never defines war as an oppressive and aggressive tool. Besides the textual context being enough for justifying the Quranic view on war, there are also important historical contexts to take into account. But since my opponent did nothing to give a detailed rebuttal to anything I said, I will refrain from getting much further into this.

What's more, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade any kind of murder on innocents, even during war. And Muslims are instructed to offer refuge to the enemy soldiers who give up and do not wish to engage in further battles against Muslims. This is mentioned in the 9th chapter of the Quran. I don't know any other religion which obliges its followers to do this kind of an act. If Islam opposed pluralism, it would never go as far as to command Muslims to help enemy soldiers who refuse to engage in further battles. "During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children." [1]

I can go deeply into more details, but Con has offered very few arguments, and the ones he wrote are very short and not very detailed.

No social classes

Con's rebuttal is a mere question, so there is not much to say here. Note that Con did not argue against my argument that Islam does not recognize race or cultural superiority. This is clearly in favor of pluralism, since Islam freely let's people act as individuals and have their individual rights. Moreover, an Islamic state is an ideological state, which means that only certain laws will apply to the society as a whole, while a great deal will be entirely subject to preferences of people belonging to different ideologies. Con did not dispute this either.

Con did not argue much against the fact that Islam supports a free market, and that this enables individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, to prosper economically. This also creates peace between different countries because they begin to depend on one another for their own good. "Between the 8th and 12th centuries, he elaborated, the Muslim world was the globe’s most advanced region. According to Akyol, much of this prosperity can be attributed to the fact that the Muslim world was the center of global trade." [2]

Con falsely argues that the reason why the Sunni and Shia Muslims are in conflict is simply because Islam recognizes discriminative social classes. This is not true whatsoever. The Sunni / Shia conflict started mainly because Muslims were confused about who the right person to lead the Muslim nation should have been after the death of the Prophet, which is 14 centuries ago. The Sunni Muslims believed that the very close companions of the Prophet should have been the caliphs (which turned out to be the case), while the Shia though the correct choice would be that Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, should have been the leader. This has nothing to do with social classes. In addition, Shia and Sunni Muslims believe in different texts beyond the Quran (all Muslim believe in the same Quran, because it has never changed), which is another reason for their conflict.

Finally, I think Con might have misunderstood the term "social classes." While every society has social classes by nature, such as those concerning economy (upper class, middle class, etc.), in this debate we are talking about discriminative social classes. That is, dividing people by say, race. There is no rational basis for this, thus it is discriminative. On the other hand, separating Muslims and non-Muslims by law has nothing to do with discriminative division by social classes. It is the exact opposite. In an Islamic state, Muslims are obliged to follow certain rules that apply only to them. For example, drinking alcohol, paying the obligatory charity, and so forth, are laws that Muslims have to follow. However, by saying that the non-Muslims should be different by law in the sense that they should be allowed to follow their own ideologies, this is not discriminative social division in any way.

Islamic societies

In the first round I made it clear that this debate had to rely on Islam primarily, not Islamic societies. However, Con kept bringing up the current situation of Islamic societies. I have no need to defend them, simply because they are Muslim majority countries - NOT societies that follow Islamic law. If anyone wishes to find out how Muslims prospered in the Middle Ages, read something about the Islamic Golden Age. Islamic societies were the most prosperous.

The resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://www.cmje.org...

[2] http://www.wrmea.com...

xxx200

Con

1] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." 8:61

i just want to know what this "peace" is? is it stoppage of war? or is it acceptance of islam by non believers? i think stoppage of war is not peace because the infidals of mecca and madina never attacked muslims at first instance. so it is not stoppage of war. then it must be, as seen from my source given in previous argument, acceptance of islam by infidals. oh yes. thats what it should be. we saw it in the days of muhammad and in current days alike. just accept islam and no jihad will be against you.

this makes islam a very aggressive religion.

2]What's more, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade any kind of murder on innocents, even during war. And Muslims are instructed to offer refuge to the enemy soldiers who give up and do not wish to engage in further battles against Muslims.

again who is this innocent people? i think infidals are not innocent in the eyes of muslims. then it must be those who accept islam. thats why Muslims are instructed to offer refuge to the enemy soldiers who give up ( read accept islam). this is not a symbol of peaceful religion.

I don't know any other religion which obliges its followers to do this kind of an act.

really? my dear? there is a religion on earth called hinduism which says the entire world is my family and forbade all sort of violence. islam is the most blood thirsty, devilish religion, if it is a religion at all.

3] Islam supports a free market,and that this enables individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, to prosper economically.

i just don't understand why then islamic countries are so poor? besides islam forbids taking interest on loan. thus it makes banking business unprofitable. islam forbids eating flesh of pigs. it makes hamburger business impossible. islam forbids practice of science which makes scientific progress impossible. just read the first chapter of sharia. there you will find all forbidden knowledge which includes science. how could one be prosperous if business is hindered in such way?

4] shia/sunni division.

the point is muslim world is divided. it is no longer one world. reason for division is immaterial.

5] If anyone wishes to find out how Muslims prospered in the Middle Ages, read something about the Islamic Golden Age. Islamic societies were the most prosperous.

and how they become prosperous? by occupying, plundering africa, spain, asia and countries. this is not a sign of prosperity. it is a sign of barbarism.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
"What can be concluded from your statement is that under Islamic rule, non-Muslims will not be able to 'mock and insult Islam' at all! If such a law is implemented seriously, I hope you understand that non-Muslims will not be able to discuss Islam with Muslims!"

That's not true, I didn't say that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was being extreme because that was not the message I was trying to put out. If the non-muslims in an Islamic state have sincere questions then they should ask it without a doubt. Mocking and insulting Islam is very different from asking sincere questions about Islam not meant to cause mischief but to discover more and clear misconceptions and doubts about Islam.

"I do not support infinite freedom of speech. There have to be some well defined lines of decency which should be respected."

I completely agree with what you said here. This is what my message and the point I was trying to get across. However, Mirza said that we should we should allow all kinds of things to be said and done at any any given situation which I completely disagree with.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
"...mob rule like in all current so-called Islamic countries."

Do not generalize. While none of the Muslim countries are very well off, there are many good aspects about the current Muslims countries also. Western press rarely presents those aspects. They focus only on problems.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
It should also be noted that if we Muslims are so weak in our faith to go as far as to require a state to use force to prevent Islam from being criticized, then just maybe we don't need an Islamic state at all. Such a state can only exist if Muslims have a strong faith in their religion, otherwise there will be mob rule like in all current so-called Islamic countries.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
@ Ahmed

There is a problem with the way you are saying it.

What can be concluded from your statement is that under Islamic rule, non-Muslims will not be able to 'mock and insult Islam' at all! If such a law is implemented seriously, I hope you understand that non-Muslims will not be able to discuss Islam with Muslims! In case they dare to ask a negative question, no matter how honorably, they will fear in case Muslims are incompetent enough to fail to answer and their 'pride' gets hurt (which should not have existed in first place)!

What will happen in such a case is that all discussion about Islam will dry up as non-Muslims will stop learning about Islam and start focusing on day to day business. Any doubt and rancor they may have (justified or unjustified) will always remain there. How unfortunate it would be, if non-Muslims are unable to gain knowledge of Islam because they were close to Muslims!

Islamic societies and countries are not so fragile that they will crumble at first hint of criticism. In fact Islam has survived through extreme prosecution. During the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace on Him), people used to come to Masjid-e-Nabvi, ask questions from him, and accept Islam on his hands. But there were many unfortunate ones who actually rejected and turned away, even after meeting Prophet Muhammad (Peace on Him). Some of them even mocked our Prophet at the Prophet's mosque (God forbid). Those who turned away were free to go back without any challenge.

I do not support infinite freedom of speech. There have to be some well defined lines of decency which should be respected. On other hand, if someone does cross limits, the person should be given a chance to retract his statement, apologize and go on with his life. Extreme punishments should be limited only for incorrigible, obstinate or chronic cases after sufficient warning. Forgiveness should be the norm.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
(I'm sorry if I sounded harsh...)
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
You've answered your own question. You said:

"The Islamic state has the role to protect Islam and humanity....

but then you contradict yourself when you say:

"But looking after what a person says about Islam isn't the role that an Islamic society should take."

Of course they should look after what a person says about Islam in order to protect it! To mock and attack Islam in an Islamic country would be to negatively criticize all laws, morals, principles, norms, and customs since they are all based on Islam. Also if an Islamic state lets people openly defame Islam then what pride and honour do the Muslims have for their own religion and Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), in their own country?! Looking after what people are saying openly in public is a must for any country to thrive.

Many western countries themselves not many years ago killed people for going against the government (Treason) and that was for human laws, material and worldly things. How can people in an Islamic state go against the laws of Allah and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad whose positions are worlds apart from secular law?
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
Ahmed, I've not read a single statement in the Quran that prohibits (i.e., by law) non-Muslims from criticizing Islam. I haven't read hadith either, and if you have some authentic ones I'll look into them.

It's impossible for non-Muslims in general not to criticize Islam. If a Muslim asks a priest about why he isn't a Muslim too, should the priest be silent? No. The Islamic state has the role to protect Islam and humanity. But looking after what a person says about Islam isn't the role that an Islamic society should take.

And verses like 28:55 saying, "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: 'To us our deeds, and to you yours peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant'" This commands Muslims to wish peace to critics of Islam, and not the opposite.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
Those are good arguments brother and I liked what you're saying. The Jizya certainly protects non-muslims from any oppression as a majority will usually oppress the minorities. Prophet Muhammad saw this and ensured their protection and is a sound law. However when you said:

"Muslims must be tolerant toward non-Muslims in any given situation"

This is not true, even if they are defaming Islam and the prophet Muhammad and are criticizing the perfect religion of Islam? I dont think so.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
You're right. It's also those who are too biased to vote properly on topics like this. Feel free to let me point out all the debates I 'lost' because of biased and nonsensical voting.
Posted by Zetsubou 5 years ago
Zetsubou
War is Decieit ~~~ Hadith of Bukhari 4, Haidth 269

Mohammed on Hudna
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Mirzaxxx200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: dropped arguments made by the pro, poor capitalization, made debate about sh*tting over Islam then the actual resolution
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
Mirzaxxx200Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The result is automatic since Con has not backed any of his arguments with actual sources. He has also ignored most of Pro's argument and tried to introduce new arguments in last round.