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

Islam is a barbaric religion that has no place in modern, civilized countries.

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: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,052 times Debate No: 53297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)




Islam has always been a religion that has been resistant to change. Think back to the crusades with the catholics, the radical and violent beliefs the catholic church had held. Nowadays the church has mended its ways and adapted to a modern world. Islam refuses to change and whenever someone so much as begins to criticize its practices they're lives are threatened. Think about sharia law, the eye for an eye mentality that the middle east is known for. Would such beliefs really benefit a modern urban city, every rapist and his victim being punished equally under law. Of course not, its a barbaric and ancient system that refuses to adapt to modern standards. My point is, is that the religion of Islam is in dire need of a reform and the first step to that is admitting that it is not without faults.


My role in this debate is to refute Pro's contention, BoP is on Pro, I will show the definitions and then begin my short rebuttal


barbaric: "very rude or offensive : not polite or proper : very cruel"[1]

Modern: ": of or relating to the present time or the recent past : happening, existing, or developing at a time near the present time" [2]

civilized: " : marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other : polite, reasonable, and respectful : pleasant and comfortable" [3]



Pro has stated used to be tough and harsh, but it is in harmony with the modern world today, then goes on about the Sharia Law, first the full Sharia law is not applied fully in any country even in Saudi Arabia.

"every rapist and his victim being punished equally under law."

False statement with no proof, Imam Malik commented on this:
"In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case."

Al-Muwatta’, 2/734

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

"The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help."

Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146

The punishment for the rapist is death by stoning or 80 lashes, depending on the case.
Debate Round No. 1


Here is some quick and concise reasons I believe Sharia Law to be unfit for the civilized world

1. Sharia Law does not allow itself to be reformed
People who argue for Sharia Law all agree that Sharia Law is perfect, infallible and downright uninterpretable. This is because most muslims think that sharia law is passed down from Allah himself and as such cannot be changed or reformed. Think about if the US or the UK were to pass a law outlawing homosexuality (as Sharia Law does) . People would be naturally upset and want the law repealed or reformed. With Sharia Law the law cannot be repealed or reformed because it is the supposed word of "allah" himself. Sharia Law does not allow those who are governed by it to request reformation as muslims can in turn argue that it goes against there religious principles to reform it.

2. Sharia law considers any extramarital sex a crime, including the victim in a rape case.
Here is proof

3. Those who are not muslim are still judged under Sharia Law in the countries where it takes effect.
These countries are Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria. Think about if you, a muslim, were forced to live by Christian laws. You would feel upset, many people are in the same position under Sharia law. In these countries non-muslims still have to live under the oppressive nature of Sharia Law. In some areas Sharia Law bans the sale of alcohol, well get to the economic ramifications of this later but for now I want you to put yourself in a non-muslims living under sharia laws shoes. Maybe you open a bar only for Sharia law to be instituted in the next week. You would be out of business in days and theres nothing you could do because its impossible for anyone to "reform" Sharia Law.

4. Stoning of adulterers
While adultery is a sinful act to be sure, under sharia law if there is four witnesses to the adultery the accused are stoned to death. Imagine if that happened in the US or the UK, a woman cheats on her husband and is publicly stoned to death the next day. For the non-religious this is an absurd punishment for such a crime, and the nature that the death penalty is carried out is equally barbaric. Stoning someone to death in view of everyone else is completely barbaric, and punishments like these are quite common in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Syria, and governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Aceh state in Indonesia. Do you really think that any civilized country would benefit from such a law, or does the stoning of another human being in public not strike you as a little monstrous. Again Sharia Law cannot be reformed because its very nature is "infallible" to muslims, that is my main problem with it.

5. Sharia Law is a fundamentally religious law, making it unfit for the modern world.
Many people today are not religious and most are not muslim. In any country we should base our laws for the entirety of all people, not just a particular group.

Ill try to talk more about topics beside Sharia Law when discussing why Islam is unfit for civilized countries in the next couple rounds.

By the way Im sorry Im not using a nice looking format, Im still new to the site.


Thank you for responding.

Point 1:
To summarize what Pro is saying, he basically says that Sharia Law does not reform.
Sharia in its strictest and most historically coherent definition it is considered the infallible law of God.
We do not change the Law of God, but it is not applied today.

Point 2:
Very unreliable sources Pro has provided contradict what Imam Malik and many other renowed Imam's have said, these sites attack Islam, even one of them provides most of its source from this mysterious cannot be found "Codified Islamic Law"

As I have said before there is no punishment for a woman if she was raped, I have used sources from one of the best Imams, not news reports which only claim and do not cite any source for their frail attempts.

Point 3:
Sharia law does not take effect in those areas heck most of the woman their do not wear Hijab!
As for Bangladesh, if truly the Sharia law was in effect, then the Christians/hindus or any non-Muslim should pay the Jizya, which is a tax for the Non-Muslims to not go to war, have protection by the state, and freely practice their religion.


Point 4:

These punishments can only occur by self-admission, as my Islamic studies Teacher(he has Masters in comparative religion) he has told me that if indeed the 4 witness witnessed the intercourse(which is impossible or nearly impossible)
they will have to be asked 100 questions, if one of them answers completely different than the other, they are to be lashed 100 times all 4 witnesses.

Now we got that clear that only by self-admission this punishment can occur, punishment of adulterers varies:
It is not stoning(in most cases), The penalty for adultery is not stoning to death unless he is a hardened and habitual sinner who is a perpetual disturber of peace of the society. Qur’an clearly spells out the related law in 24:2, which is 100 lashes.
The sinner, if repentant, is not required to voluntarily report his sin to law. Instead, he should ask forgiveness of Allah and resolve to stay away from the sin in future. ‘The Prophet of Allah said; “Stay away from those loathsome evils, which Allah has forbidden you from. If someone through a slip indulges in any such act then he should remain concealed behind the veil of Allah and ask forgiveness of Him. But if someone will produce his neck before us (i.e. stick to the sinful activities unashamedly and boldly) then we shall enforce the code over him.”

(Bulughul Maraam; Kitabul Hudood; Ibne Haj’r Asqalani)

“Said Anas Bin Malik, ‘I was present beside the Prophet (Pbuh) when a man came and said; ‘O Prophet of Allah I have committed a punishable sin, so enact the punishment’. The Prophet (Pbuh) did not ask him any question till it was time for Namaz. After he had offered the prayer with the Prophet (Pbuh), he again approached him and said; “O Prophet of Allah I have committed a punishable sin, so judge me by the book of Allah”. The Prophet (Pbuh) asked him, ‘ Have you not offered prayer with me’? He replied, ‘Yes’. Then the Prophet (Pbuh) said, ‘Allah has pardoned your sin and your punishment.” (Bukhari).

The Prophet (Pbuh) did not even ask him what crime or sin he had committed. This is because the purpose of punishment in Islamic system is to punish the consistent and habitual criminal so that others should learn from his severe punishment and do not dare to follow in his footsteps.

As of my knowledge stoning is not a punishment for adultery, as I have said above the punishments are not applied usually(nearly never) and repentance should be made.

Point 5:

"Many people today are not religious and most are not muslim. In any country we should base our laws for the entirety of all people, not just a particular group."

Sharia Law won't be applied on the whole world, best be if its applied in Muslim countries, there are many people who are religious, even people who aren't 'religious' do not complain about the 'Sharia law', but I still do not know how is a religious law unfit for the modern world, yes you have you opinion, but many of us do not care about it, you need to actually use valid points.

Anything that Islam bans is a benefit for you, tell me on thing that is forbidden and It is totally good for the society.
Debate Round No. 2


Ill try my best to respond to all your points

Point 1:
Your basically proving my point when I say that no muslim wants to reform Sharia Law. You say that it is the law of God and does not need reform. You basically proved my point when I said that it is a law that can never be reformed and by extension can never be improved

Point 2:
You are using sources from Imams, people who lead prayer in islam. Because they are from Islam they are supposed to defend islam. My sites offered stories about people who are persecuted by Islam, and the people on my sites have no obligation to defend islam as your Imams do. Therefore your Imams are untrustworthy as it is against there moral fiber to admit anything wrong with Islam, as its against there religion. They are blinded by there obligation to there church and as such they couldnt say anything negative about Islam even if they thought something negative about islam.

Point 3:
The Jizya is a terrible tax that burdens people simply for not following Islam. You have proved my point by offering an example about how the law in muslim countries oppesses non-muslims.

Point 4:
You admit that stoning someone to death in public is a possibility, also lashing someone a hundred times for sleeping with another mans wife is still pretty barbaric. Imagine in the UK or US if everyday men and women were brought out in the middle of the street and lashed a hundred times in full view of the public for commiting a "sexual sin" in the eyes of the Quran. Not everyone follows the Quran so the law shouldnt affect those who arent muslim but it DOES, making your last point even more ridiculous.

Point 5:
Many non-muslim people do complain about Sharia Law, it hurts local businesses that sell things Sharia Law bans and opresses those who arent muslim. Not everyone thinks and worships like a muslim so not everyone should have to follow muslim laws. Many people who are non-religious also hate Sharia Law because it limits there personal freedoms to eat, drink and party how they want. You cant expect everyone to be a muslim, and Im correcting in saying that a country should base its laws on the entirety of all people, not a particular group. You muslims have been oppressed in the past under Christian laws, now you are oppressing anyone who isnt muslim in muslim countries under your laws. The law shouldnt be religiously based because no matter where you go not everyone is religious.

Im sorry if I sound a little hateful when I write these words, its just Ive lived under Sharia Law before and it hurt my bar business forcing me into homelessness for three years of my life. Sharia Law does hurt people and if you looked at non-muslims lives youd see that not everyone benefits under Sharia Law.

I hope you can have some valid points that contradict anything I have said in the next round, because so far you havent been able to.


Thank you for your response.

Point 1:

I have not proved your point, I am saying since that Sharia Law is innerant and infallible and perfect, therefore it cannot be improved, It is impossible to improve something like God's Law, I do not see anything wrong with a Law that is so perfect that cannot be improved.

Point 2:

"These Imams who lead people in prayer are"

No, Imams like Imam Malik made a whole school of jurisprudence that is followed to this day, he was one of the best scholars in history of Islam, he taught Imam Al shaf'i who also made a whole school of jurisprudence, Imam malik wrote:
"Al-Muwatta, "The Approved," which was said to have been regarded by Shafi'i to be the soundest book on Earth after the Qur'an." [1]

I am using sources from best of scholars, that say the opposite of what you have said, are you using sources from the best of scholars? No you used sources who even cite something that does not exist as I have shown from my previous round.

Point 3:

"The Jizya is a terrible tax that burdens people simply for not following Islam."

Baseless comment, let me educate you on the Jizya, Imam Malik said:
"The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. The people of dhimma and the magians do not have to pay any zakat on their palms or their vines or their crops or their livestock. This is because zakat is imposed on the muslims to purify them and to be given back to their poor, whereas jizya is imposed on the people of the Book to humble them. As long as they are in the country they have agreed to live in, they do not have to pay anything on their property except the jizya. If, however, they trade in muslim countries, coming and going in them, a tenth is taken from what they invest in such trade. This is because jizya is only imposed on them on conditions, which they have agreed on, namely that they will remain in their own countries, and that war will be waged for them on any enemy of theirs, and that if they then leave that land to go anywhere else to do business they will haveto pay a tenth. Whoever among them does business with the people of Egypt, and then goes to Syria, and then does business with the people of Syria and then goes to Iraq and does business with them and then goes on to Madina, or Yemen, or other similar places, has to pay a tenth.

People of the Book and magians do not have to pay any zakat on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops. The sunna still continues like that. They remain in the deen they were in, and they continue to do what they used to do. If in any one year they frequently come and go in muslim countries then they have to pay a tenth every time they do so, since that is outside what they have agreed upon, and not one of the conditions stipulated for them. This is what I have seen the people of knowledge of our city doing."(Book 17, Number 17.24.46 Muwatta)

"The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule."[1]

No taxation without representation.


Point 4:

It can only happen by self-admission, therefore that Man/Woman it is not required for the punishment to occur, but if they want the good repentance then they admit it, as I have shown you that you can only repent, that is fine no need to go around and get lashed.

Point 5:

"Many non-muslim people do complain about Sharia Law"

You mean butthurt non-Muslims.

" it hurts local businesses that sell things Sharia Law bans and opresses those who arent muslim. "

You have not provided proof for what you have said, therefore it is ignored.

"Not everyone thinks and worships like a muslim so not everyone should have to follow muslim laws."

I do not like the US laws, you know what I did? I went to Saudi Arabia, I suggest the non-Muslims who hate Muslim laws, migrate if it is so oppressing.

"Many people who are non-religious also hate Sharia Law because it limits there personal freedoms to eat, drink and party how they want."

You mean people who drink Alcohol? or eat Pigs(whether Bacon or Pork), actually you can drink and eat the following, but you are not a believer when doing that as per many Hadiths, but you cannot drink in public as you will hurt the society, obviously I am not recommeding it, because it is forbidden in Islam.

" You muslims have been oppressed in the past under Christian laws, now you are oppressing anyone who isnt muslim in muslim countries under your laws."

False, go back to the 14 hundereds Ferdinand and Isabella forcefully converted people from Islam/Judaism to Christianity, but if you go at least 600 years before, Jews,Christians, and Muslims lived in peace, and never got converted forcefully.

(I am not saying all Christians are evil, just educating Pro)

"The law shouldnt be religiously based because no matter where you go not everyone is religious."

Even non-religious people want Sharia Law, because it is just, peaceful, and if applied no injustice would happen.

I believe I have refuted all of Pro's claims.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
The instigator is obviously ignorant. The bible says you should be stoned to death for working on the sabbath (Leviticus) and that you shouldn't mix fabric but do all Christians follow those rules? No unless they're crazy. You could make the case that yeh. I me is sexist and barbaric (if you actually read it) just lie you are about Islam. I've been to turkey which is 99% Muslim. Women don't cover their hair ( your not lose to in universities not that youd know any things about them) people don't always fast or go to Mecca or pray five times a day. Not l Muslims are like that. You chat judge all of us based on the actions of some. Now that's barbaric. Learn something..
Posted by Interzone 2 years ago
Im advocating reform, not the banning of the religion TrexieGirl
Posted by TrexieGirl 2 years ago
The word you seem to be using is EXTREMIST! There are Muslims that don't do the things you say. And you seem to be against freedom of religion.
Posted by TrexieGirl 2 years ago
Well, to be fair, Muslims don't see it as barbaric. I see it perfectly fine to believe in your religion, as long as you aren't bombing anyone. And that is coming from a Christian.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Religion that adapts? But a religion should not change
Posted by Interzone 2 years ago
I answered it in my debate, at least I think I did pretty well. If not Ill follow it up
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
Interzone, you aren't really answering his challenges toward you. When he asked you to provide him with evidence that the Sharia law states you need to punish the victim, you just gave him a quote concerning thieves and how, regardless of whether they are male or female, they should have their hands cut off.
Posted by Interzone 2 years ago
I find Islam to be the prime example of a religion that doesn't want to adapt to the modern world.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Well, this arguments could work with most of religions, maybe all. Why not debate against all of them?
Posted by Valtin 2 years ago
There is no valid arguments, I await your arguments, but please use evidence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument and sources appear to come from anti-Islamic sources, having many Islamic friends, his argument appears contrary to my own experiences with Islam, Con's argument appears closer to my experience and though I don't want Sharia Law implemented in Western civilization for we have too many existing laws, it appears to work in countries that need laws, though as in all legal systems, there are seriously wrong decisions made, Pro just highlighted some extreme cases of poor or delusional judgements made. Most of Pro's sources appear propagandist. The rapist paying the Victim's family, is not originally Sharia based, if Pro really did careful research of all the poor judgements made within Islam, Pro will find them all in The Old Testament, The payment of a fine for Rape originated in the Old Testament. Much of Islam was plagiarized from the Old Testament. Muhammad was not clever nor wise enough to create an entire religion by himself. Like Joseph Smith, he plagiarized.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems that this debate was focusing mainly on Sharia law, Both sides made very valid and strong points against and for Islam, however I felt that Pro's argument was more relevant to the topic of the debate. Which is that Islam is barbaric. Con did not refute this however made a strong argument that it's barbaric nature is a necessary one for Muslim society to follow. However con agreed multiple times that Being lashed or stoned in public is a possibility for adultery or rape. This is by definition barbaric. therefor Pro gets my vote.