The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
88 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Islam is a Religion of Peace as Preached and Practiced.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 16 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,614 times Debate No: 12563
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (95)
Votes (16)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Con

The proposition on offer is that, as preached and practiced, Islam is a religion of peace. There are several points that counter this view, and I shall present them here in broader terms for both the audience and my opponent.

It has been said that the Qur'an is a collection of verses that teach peace except when provoked, and that any violence attributed to Islam is portrayed out of context, and is incorrect. However, there are two fundamental problems with this proposition.

First, even contextualized, the violent nature of Islam goes beyond simply "an eye for an eye." Second, the notion that that has in practice produced a peaceful climate of international relations (or intertribal at the time) is laughable, and obviously false in light of the expansion of the Islamic Empire in the 600's.

Here's just a few examples of the violence that is preached and encouraged.

9:5 - "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. "

28-62 "On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined ?" [Concerning taunting Christians and Jews on Judgment Day]

39:24 - Is he then, who will strike his face against the awful doom upon the Day of Resurrection (as he who doeth right)? And it will be said unto the wrong-doers: Taste what ye used to earn." [Allah encourages you to taunt wrongdoers as they suffer their painful doom.]

5:38 - "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. "

5:41 - "Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom"

2:7 - "Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."

2:48 - "guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped."

2:191 - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

2:193a - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

3:195 - "So those who fled and were driven forth from their homes and suffered damage for My cause, and fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow - A reward from Allah."

***************************************

Just a smattering of the violence riddled throughout the Qur'an...

The mentality of this religion goes far beyond, as I said before, merely an eye for an eye. Even equal remuneration seems to be a foreign concept - the Qur'an commands instead total destruction for the most minor of transgressions.

This, combined with the rapid spread of the Islamic Empire shows that the supposed peaceful ways of early Islam are clearly a sham conceived to make Islam seem more palatable to those Muslims wish to convert.

Lastly, in practice, it is obvious from the most cursory of glances at a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations that Islam is not peaceful as practiced.
Fatihah

Pro

My opponent would like to demonstrate to us that islam is not a religion of peace. His reason's to show that islam is not a religion of peace is based not only on the violent verses of the qur'an, but the expansion of the islamic.

Let me first begin with a clear statement. Islam is indeed a religion which teaches violent. My opponent has even taken the liberty to show from the qur'an, several of those violent verses. So the question still remains, is islam a religion of peace? Well, it depends on what one means by the phrase, "religion of peace". If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace. But if by peace, you mean a law which establishes peace, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is a religion of peace.

So in order for this debate to take place, I would like for my opponent to select which definition he is in contention with concerning islam.

A. religion of peace - a religion which is non-violent

B. religion of peace - a religion who's laws establish peace when followed.

If you are in contention with example A., then there is no need for a debate, for we are already in agreeance that islam is a violent religion.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Readers, this debate can be decided here after the first round where my opponent has already conceded:

>> "Let me first begin with a clear statement. Islam is indeed a religion which teaches violent [sic]."

He then backs away from this position with a qualifying statement:

>> "If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace. But if by peace, you mean a law which establishes peace, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is a religion of peace."

I mean by both. A true religion of peace, like Jainism, is peaceful in both contexts. And as someone aptly noted in the comments (and stole my thunder doing so), "peace" at the tip of a sword is not peace - it is coercion.

The only way the laws of Islam are capable of bringing peace is if all the people on the planet are Muslim, paying a "protection tax" to guarantee their religious freedom, or dead. I submit that this is not peace, but a standoff. Further, the laws of Islam are likely to bring considerable bloodshed bringing about this coerced standoff - so much bloodshed that it would be the case that a MUCH MORE PEACEFUL equilibrium would have existed had Islam never been created.

I further submit that the resolution's conjunct "Preached and Practiced" incorporates both my opponent's definitions above. The first is how it is preached, and the second how it is practiced. He has conceded the first of these points. What remains is simply to demolish what feeble argument can be put forth under the second definition.

NEGATED.
Fatihah

Pro

My opponent would like to demonstrate that islam is not a religion of peace. That if we were to follow the laws prescribed in islam, it would not lead to peace. Being that islam is derived from the qur'an and the sunnah, it is the responsibility of my appointment to show to us all what laws from the qur'an and sunnah does not lead to peace if followed and why. Thus far, he has not presented one. So unfotunately, the debate has not tooken off.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent has done nothing this round to defend his case. Remember that he has already admitted:

>> "Islam is indeed a religion which teaches violent. My opponent has even taken the liberty to show from the qur'an, several of those violent verses."

At the very least, he must begin responding to the verses from the Qur'an that he has already admitted are violent. Further, even a cursory glance at Sharia law shows the inherent violence in Islam.

Here's a good example... an 8 year old boy was caught stealing bread in a market in Iran. His punishment? Not jail time... not even having his hand removed (as is supposed to happen). It was decided under Sharia law that the best way to punish this 8 year old was to torture him by running his arm over with a car:

(Viewer Discretion Advised)
http://www.trosch.org...
http://www.trosch.org...
http://www.trosch.org...
http://www.trosch.org...
http://www.trosch.org...
http://www.trosch.org...

Adultery under Sharia law has an interesting way of being punished... If you are not married, you are lashed 100 times. Not a big deal. But if you ARE married, you are stoned to death. It is also mentioned that the stones that are to be used are not to be as small as a pebble, but also not to be so big as to kill with one or two blows - they want you to suffer. For more on how this is played out in the Religion of Peace, see here: http://www.apostatesofislam.com.... Again - VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED.

Here's a couple of interesting fatwas that demonstrate the violence to come if Islam is allowed to spread...

Ayatollah Khomeini issues a fatwa banning reading Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses." Including a price on the author's head. ( "The West Is Choked by Fear", Der Speigel Jan 4, 2010, Henryk Broder)

In Malaysia, a fatwa condemns women who act "un-lady-like" behavior. The punishment for this hasn't been decided yet, but in Malaysia... will probably involve some violence. (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my...).

Readers, as you can see, the case for the violence incurred by following the laws of Islam is well documented. A cursory reading of articles at the MIPT website should cure anyone of the notion that it is not.

*****************************************************************

Lazy pseudo-answers clamoring for some evidence of what is right before you just doesn't cut it. My opponent is encouraged to step up and actually debate... not hide like a scared rodent.

NEGATED.
Fatihah

Pro

Readers, we are now running to a reoccuring problem. You see, my opponent never intended to debate, but rather, intended to slander and degrade the religion of islam. I again asked for my opponent to show from the qur'an or sunnah which laws does not lead to peace if followed, and again he provides nothing. Instead,he insists on debating a topic which we AGREE to. He says there are violent verses in the qur'an. I say there are violent verses in the qur'an. So to insist on a debate to something in which we agree to is ludacris. Thus my opponent's intent in bringing about violent verses in the qur'an was not to debate, because we actually agree and to debate what we agree with is ludacris. It is rather the intent of my opponent all the while to portray islam in a negative manner, not to debate, to convince you as readers to perceive islam in a negative way. A quite underhanded attempt to serve his own personal agenda. So my apologies before hand for the readers who anticipated in hearing a debate. I was actually under the impression that one would take place.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

With my third collection of evidence in support of the proposition unopposed, it seems my opponent has run himself out of room to actually respond.... but in the spirit of fair debate (and exposing Fatihah for the intellectual fraud he is), I suppose I will respond to his contention that no debate is actually occurring...

In his "rebuttal" my opponent argues that we all my evidence is in support of the first part of the resolution's conjunct, and that I have provided no support for the second. Some responses:

>> "I again asked for my opponent to show from the qur'an or sunnah which laws does not lead to peace if followed"

See the above example of punishing the 8 year old. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is Sharia law that provides this child's punishment (torture, rather). Then take a look at the video of the woman getting stoned. This too is based in Sharia law.

Sharia law is also based on the hadith, which is sometimes considered to be interchangeable with the Sunnah, and is one of the fundamental tools of Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur'an mentions punishments for thieves (5:38), but it was Muhammad himself who laid out the punishment for adultery:

V2;B23;#413 - "The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death)"

V3;B34;#421 - "This is my brother and was born on my father's bed from his slave-girl." Allah's Apostle cast a look at the boy and found definite resemblance to 'Utba and then said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abu bin Zam'a. The child goes to the owner of the bed and the adulterer gets nothing but the stones (despair, i.e. to be stoned to death)."

And here, perhaps, is the clearest version of how stoning is to take place, with the unwed laborer getting a simple hundred lashes, and the married woman he had sex with (note that the law is not different in cases of rape) getting stoned:

V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death."

http://www.faithfreedom.org...

Furthermore, since Islamic law derives directly from the Qur'an, any imperative statement in the Qur'an has force of law for Muslims (under Sharia law, at any rate). So verses like 2:191 (above), 9:5 (above), and 2:193 (above) are examples of imperatives under Islamic law. These are things that are required by Allah - laws of Islam.

Here's another good command found in several places in the Hadith:

"Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Bukhari, Hakim, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Tabarani).

Sounds real peaceful to me.

*************************************************

I would like to again make the point that equilibrium at the end of a sword is not "peace." It is coercion, compulsion, and tyranny. My opponent would like to be able to defend the atrocities that are commanded by the heinous collection that is Muslim law by standing by and hoping someone will believe him that there is not an actual debate on the topic... but as anyone can see from actually reading, the only reason there is no debate is because my opponent is either unwilling or unable (or both) to defend against these claims.

So far, every claim I have made has gone unopposed.

>> "So to insist on a debate to something in which we agree to is ludacris [sic]."

Well... no - Ludacris is a rapper. If you are claiming it is ludicrous to debate on something you agree with, then why accept the debate challenge? I submit that if this is actually his position,it is Fatihah, not myself, who came here with no intention of debating.

>> "It is rather the intent of my opponent all the while to portray islam in a negative manner"

Actually, Islam (and you) seems to be doing a very good job of that without my help. Show me where something I've presented is not accurate and factual.

This laughable "rebuttal" only serves to drive my point home. If my opponent had any defense to offer against my claims, he surely would have done so.

NEGATED.
Fatihah

Pro

As Salaamu Alaikum

After my opponent used strawman after strawman, neglecting to actually debate, he finally makes a desperate attempt. Let's analyze.

I repeat, I asked my opponent for the third time to present a law from the qur'an or sunnah which does not lead to peace if followed. So what does he do? He presents the following:

"See the above example of punishing the 8 year old. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is Sharia law that provides this child's punishment (torture, rather). Then take a look at the video of the woman getting stoned. This too is based in Sharia law."

Is the above example of the 8 year old mentioned in the qur'an? NO. How about the sunnah? NO. Are there videos in the qur'an? NO. How about the sunnah? NO. Again, my opponent is proving nothing. What is wrong with my opponent? 3 times I asked for evidence from the qur'an and sunnah and 3 times he shows examples from anything but the qur'an and sunnah. Clearly, those of us who are reasonable will agree that my opponent is losing, and losing fast with such strawmans.

So he makes another attempt. He presents the following hadiths:

"V2;B23;#413 - "The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death)"

V3;B34;#421 - "This is my brother and was born on my father's bed from his slave-girl." Allah's Apostle cast a look at the boy and found definite resemblance to 'Utba and then said, "The boy is for you, O 'Abu bin Zam'a. The child goes to the owner of the bed and the adulterer gets nothing but the stones (despair, i.e. to be stoned to death)."

And here, perhaps, is the clearest version of how stoning is to take place, with the unwed laborer getting a simple hundred lashes, and the married woman he had sex with (note that the law is not different in cases of rape) getting stoned:

V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death."

Being that these are hadiths, we can agree that it is not from the qur'an. So that leaves the sunnah. So the question is, is this from the sunnah? The answer is no. Had my opponent actually studied islam, instead of cherry picking hadiths, he would have easily learned that. The sunnah in islam is the legal ways of the prophet Muhammad(pbuh). It is the example set by Muhammad for all muslims to follow in order to be the best of muslims. Some things are obligatory, some are not. In the case of stoning, it is not the sunnah of Muhammad. The order of stoning comes from the taurat (torah). Muhammad used the law of the taurat because many of the tribes were not only jews, but the law of punishment for sex outside of marriage was not yet revealed. So it was the custom of Muhammad to use the law of the taurat, until Allah revealed otherwise. This can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Book 82 number 802. In short, Muhammad used the law of the jews for the jews. So once again, your example is flawed. Instead, your example only shows how just Muhammad is, for he judged the jews according to their law.

So to conclude, after my opponent dodged the topic in the beginning, he finally makes an attempt, but fails miserably. And the question of how the laws in the qur'an does not establish peace still goes unanswered. The question is not whether there are violent verses or hadiths in islam, for I've already agreed in my opening statement that there are. So don't be fooled by the strawman of my opponent when he presents anything violent from the qur'an or sunnah and claims to have proven to me that violence is in islam. I never stated that there wasn't, nor is it the topic. The topic is whether the laws in islam establishes, not whether there's violence in islam. And when answering the question of whether the laws of islam establishes peace, my opponent still has not answered the question, proving that he has no proof, and confirming that islam is a religion which brings about peace.
Debate Round No. 4
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

And with a final display of confused, but earnest arrogance, my opponent hands me the debate as surely as the sun rises in the East. Let's take a look, shall we?

>> "Is the above example of the 8 year old mentioned in the qur'an? NO. How about the sunnah? NO. Are there videos in the qur'an? NO. How about the sunnah? NO. Again, my opponent is proving nothing."

Apparently my opponent is incapable of comprehending the phrase "as preached AND PRACTICED."

>> "3 times I asked for evidence from the qur'an and sunnah and 3 times he shows examples from anything but the qur'an and sunnah. "

Actually, the debate begins with several examples from the Qur'an. And the rest of the examples are from Islamic law, which is what my opponent asked for (Remember "a religion who's LAWS establish peace when followed" ??). The fact that none are drawn from the Sunnah is irrelevant. Islamic law is not based solely on the Sunnah. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, hadiths, religious scholars, analogy, and reason (though loosely on the last one).

>> "Being that these are hadiths, we can agree that it is not from the qur'an. So that leaves the sunnah. So the question is, is this from the sunnah? The answer is no. Had my opponent actually studied islam, instead of cherry picking hadiths, he would have easily learned that."

The interesting thing about this is that my opponent keeps referring to the "laws of Islam." Had HE undertaken a study of Islam, he would know that the hadiths are a fundamental part of Islamic jurisprudence. I encourage him to consult "al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah" which has been referred to as "After the Qur'an itself, the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad form the most important foundation of Islamic thought" (http://kitaabun.com...). Further, the hadith is a specific subset of the Sunnah. The Sunnah refers to the words, actions, and way of life of Muhammad. The hadiths are collections of just his words and actions (http://www.al-islami.com...).

And in his book, Introduction to Islam, Dr Muhammad Hamidullah states that: "the custodian and repository of the original teachings of Islam are found above all in the Quran and the Hadith …The Quran and the Hadith are the basis for ALL LAW. The teaching of Islam are based primarily on the Quran and the Hadith, and, as we shall presently see, BOTH ARE INSPIRED ON THE DIVINE INSPIRATION" (http://www.faithfreedom.org...)

>> "So once again, your example is flawed. Instead, your example only shows how just Muhammad is, for he judged the jews according to their law."

He judged the Jews according to their law? Perhaps you missed this part: "V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to ALLAH'S LAWS.""

>> "And the question of how the laws in the qur'an does not establish peace still goes unanswered."

Oh really? Perhaps you missed this: "Furthermore, since Islamic law derives directly from the Qur'an, any imperative statement in the Qur'an has force of law for Muslims (under Sharia law, at any rate). So verses like 2:191 (above), 9:5 (above), and 2:193 (above) are examples of imperatives under Islamic law. These are things that are required by Allah - laws of Islam."

If any of the above verses are violent, which my opponent has already admitted, then it follows that the laws of Islam deliver violence.

>> "The topic is whether the laws in islam establishes, not whether there's violence in islam."

And here we have a radical misunderstanding of some very, very simple language. The topic is whether Islam is a religion of peace AS PREACHED and AS PRACTICED. My opponent has conceded the first point, and states that I have offered no proof of the second. I have continuously offered such proof for the last 3 rounds, and it has been completely ignored for the most part, save for the pitiful "response" he gives trying to discredit the quotes from the hadith.

********************************************************************

Here's some more resources to think about when considering Islam AS PRACTICED (remember, my opponent has conceded as preached).

Jack Kelly, USA Today:

"ZARQA, Jordan — The Hotaris are preparing for a party to celebrate the killing of 21 Israelis this month by their son, a suicide bomber. Neighbors hang pictures on their trees of Saeed Hotari holding seven sticks of dynamite. They spray-paint graffiti reading "21 and counting" on their stone walls. And they arrange flowers in the shapes of a heart and a bomb to display on their front doors. "I am very happy and proud of what my son did and, frankly, am a bit jealous," says Hassan Hotari, 54, father of the young man who carried out the attack June 1 outside a disco in Tel Aviv. It was Israel's worst suicide bombing in nearly four years. "I wish I had done (the bombing). My son has fulfilled the Prophet's (Mohammed's) wishes. He has become a hero! Tell me, what more could a father ask?""

Sheik Hasan Yosef:

""When I walk outside, young (Palestinian) children come up to me and say, 'Conduct another bombing to make us happy, sheik,' ""I cannot disappoint them. They won't have to wait long.""

Ahmed , 11 years old:

""I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys [See 2:65 - this is in the Qur'an] ... I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know."

Saeed Hotari's father, on his son's suicide bombing that killed 21 people:

"My prayer is that Saeed's brothers, friends and fellow Palestinians will sacrifice their lives, too... There is no better way to show God you love him."

Hadith V4:b52:#176:

"Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' ""

Here's some hope for if you have the misfortune to be born in a Muslim country... From "Reliance of the Traveler" (http://www.muhammadanism.org...)

""Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly consensus (ijmn', def:b7) and which is necessarily known as being of the religion (N: necessarily known meaning things that any Muslim would know about if asked) thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief..."

******************************************************************

A religion of peace? My opponent has already admitted that it is not a religion of peace as preached due to the incredible amount of violence in the Qur'an. His case to rebut the violence in the practice of Islam is hopeless.

NEGATED.
Fatihah

Pro

The absurdity of my opponent ensues. After dancing around the topic, he finally tries an attempt to actually debate the topic. After failing miserably, he goes right back to where he started. Even more strawman arguments. Once again, and I believe this is the forth time now, he has jumped right off topic. Why? Because he has absolutly no sound logic for the topic. So he insists on sidetracking the debate with talks not relating to the topic. This is clearly the act of desperation. Once again, this is now the 4th time, I stated for my opponent to provide any law from the qur'an or sunnah which shows that it does not establish peace when followed. And he has deliberately avoided it everytime as if we somehow won't notice his ducking and dodging. Now let's see if he has referred to the qur'an and sunnah and provided a law which does not allow peace in his last rebuttle.

He first says:

"Apparently my opponent is incapable of comprehending the phrase "as preached AND PRACTICED."

First off, that is not a coherent sentence to begin with. Yet you have the nerve to suggest that I'm incapable of comprehending. Let's look at the sentence. "Islam is not a religion of peace as practiced and preached".

O.K. You're missing a part. AS PRACTICED AND PREACHED BY WHO?! Are you suggesting that all muslims are violent? That all muslims kill and stone people? You don't even say. I've already stated that islam does teach violence and we all know that there are people who do unjust things in the name of islam, so to even want to debate such a topic is absurd.

Then my opponent goes on to say:

"Actually, the debate begins with several examples from the Qur'an. And the rest of the examples are from Islamic law, which is what my opponent asked for (Remember "a religion who's LAWS establish peace when followed" ??). The fact that none are drawn from the Sunnah is irrelevant. Islamic law is not based solely on the Sunnah. Sharia law is based on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, hadiths, religious scholars, analogy, and reason (though loosely on the last one)."

Yes, my opponent has quoted from the qur'an. But you did so to debate off-topic. You quoted the qur'an to show violence in islam. But doing so again was just a duck and dodge move on your part, for I agreed already in my opening statement that islam teaches violence. The fact that you insisted to debate something we agree with just shows how silly your way of thinking is. If we agree, there's nothing to debate. Yet when asked to show verses that don't establish peace and why, my opponent is off and running. He provides nothing. Nothing for the 4th time. The debate was over long ago, for my opponent refuses to provide the evidence. As for trying to run now and suggest that the topic was never about whether islam establishes peace when followed, let me remind the readers of his exact words:

"First, even contextualized, the violent nature of Islam goes beyond simply "an eye for an eye." Second, the notion that that has in practice produced a peaceful climate of international relations (or intertribal at the time) is laughable, and obviously false in light of the expansion of the Islamic Empire in the 600's."

Above, my opponent clearly states that the notion that the violent nature in islam produced a peaceful climate is laughable, suggesting that the violence in islam did not produce a peaceful climate. Yet for the past rebuttles, he's been lying to us all as if the topic of whether the laws of islam produces peace or not was never the topic. As I said before, he's ducking and dodging.

He then says:

"The interesting thing about this is that my opponent keeps referring to the "laws of Islam." Had HE undertaken a study of Islam, he would know that the hadiths are a fundamental part of Islamic jurisprudence. I encourage him to consult "al-Nukat ala Kitab ibn al-Salah" which has been referred to as "After the Qur'an itself, the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad form the most important foundation of Islamic thought" (http://kitaabun.com......). Further, the hadith is a specific subset of the Sunnah. The Sunnah refers to the words, actions, and way of life of Muhammad. The hadiths are collections of just his words and actions (http://www.al-islami.com......).

The sheer ignorance of my opponent. An atheist trying to tell a muslim about his own religion. I could speak arabic words and phrases and islamic references you wouldn't be able to pronounce. But that's getting off the subject. Here, my opponent makes the claim that islamic law comes from hadiths. Of course they do. But they come from the hadiths which are sunnah. Not just any hadith. The kitab in which you refer to is not the sunnah. And if you suggest otherwise, you should be able prove so. But you can't. Saying that something was referred to as a divine book or a book of law by muslims or even muslims who consider themselves scolars is not proof. For every muslim agrees that the sunnah of the prophet is the best example and at no time did the prophet say to follow anything that is not the sunnah. As an atheist, you suggest that Muhammad invented the qur'an and islam. This means that islam derives from Muhammad and the qur'an. So did Muhammad refer to the Kitab in your example as a book of guidance? No. Thus for you or any muslim for that manner to suggest that islamic law should be derived from there are clearly in the wrong.

He then says:

"He judged the Jews according to their law? Perhaps you missed this part: "V3;B49;#860 - "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to ALLAH'S LAWS.""

My opponent's ignorance is amusing. Just because one is a bedouin does not mean that they are not a jew. Bedouin does not mean non-jew. Secondly, the hadith you quoted clearly states that the bedouin asked to be judged by Allah's law. So you've just actually helped to demonstrate an example of how respected and admirable Muhammad is, for the man asked to be punished, I repeat, asked to be punished, I repeat again, ASKED to be punished by a judgement according to Allah. This shows the loving and respectable person of Muhammad and the beauty of islam, for the person ASKED to be judged by Allah. No force or coercion.

Finally, my opponent closes his argument. But how does he do it? Not with text from the qur'an or sunnah, but more off-topic quotes.

You see, it is clear that my opponent has no evidence that islam does not lead to peace when practiced. Thus his own ducking and dodging of the topic and his own words are clear evidence to the simple fact. And that is islam is a religion which brings peace when practiced.
Debate Round No. 5
95 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
JustCallMeTarzan quoted several verses from the qur'an but not once did he show how the violence was implicated. To the contrary, it was shown in round 4 and 5 how the verses are implicated, all which help to establish peace, thus refuting his argument.
Posted by smartboy101 6 years ago
smartboy101
@loganruckman

"Luke 19:22-27"
and some of your other verses are ridiculous, have you read those verses?
its not even Jesus speaking directly, he was a saying a parable of forgiving others.

NO where in the new testament has there been a verse that orders violence, instead Jesus said
"If someone slaps you on the right cheek, show him your left cheek.

And the old testament verses you showed, Christians are not supposed to follow those, thats why Jesus came to earth to set new laws.

Where as if we look at Islam and quran, "JustcallMeTarazan" listed verses after verses from Koran showing how violence is implicated.

Thanks
Posted by TheImmortalSon 6 years ago
TheImmortalSon
Although I don't agree with Con, he did overall a better job than Pro, unfortunately.
Posted by LoganRuckman 6 years ago
LoganRuckman
Oops, sorry for the double post. However, even though I don't agree with Con, I have to say he did a much better job than Pro.
Posted by LoganRuckman 6 years ago
LoganRuckman
Christianity is violent too. What about the centuries of violence Christians forced on other faiths. Also, from this article: http://jmm.aaa.net.au...:
1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

Now, I know most of the voters are probably Christian. Why don't we just stop with all the hate based on religion.
Posted by LoganRuckman 6 years ago
LoganRuckman
Christianity is violent too. What about the centuries of violence Christians forced on other faiths. Also, from this article: http://jmm.aaa.net.au...:
1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

Now, I know most of the voters are probably Christian. Why don't we just stop with all the hate based on religion.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
"If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace."

Pro lost the debate right there.

The topic of the debate was not whether islam was violent or not. So your vote, like everyone else, is in error, for it's based on a false premise. Therefore, the debate could not possibly be lost on such a standard.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
"If by peace, you mean non-violent religion, then I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that islam is not a religion of peace."

Pro lost the debate right there.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
"You state time and time again that I "seeked to have [my] argument validated." Where is your proof for that? Or this - "Truth does not need validation" - where is your proof for that?

You "seeked" to debase my win by introducing these false and unsupported premises, but what you are really doing is just proving that you haven't even thought about any of the issues here. Do you even understand what "validate" means? It simply means to confirm.

I'll let it slide for now because English is clearly not your first language if at 26 you are saying things like "seeked" and "tasking on the task."

I never stated that "validate" does not mean confirm, so it is clearly your english that needs work. Secondly, you saying words like "tat" and not knowing what transliteration is clearly shows that you are the last person to give english lessons.

As for your proof, the proof is in your actions. If something is cleary true, then you don't need to "confirm" that it's true. You needed to confirm that something was true, which means that you yourself did not believe that your own argument was true. And your dodging of the topic for 3 rounds shows that even you knew that your argument was false.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
It's fascinating... I say QQ Moar and it does!

You state time and time again that I "seeked to have [my] argument validated." Where is your proof for that? Or this - "Truth does not need validation" - where is your proof for that?

You "seeked" to debase my win by introducing these false and unsupported premises, but what you are really doing is just proving that you haven't even thought about any of the issues here. Do you even understand what "validate" means? It simply means to confirm.

I'll let it slide for now because English is clearly not your first language if at 26 you are saying things like "seeked" and "tasking on the task."
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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 
Vote Placed by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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 
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
JustCallMeTarzanFatihahTied
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