The Instigator
chengste
Pro (for)
Losing
47 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
89 Points

Islam is a religion of hate and violence

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 24 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,288 times Debate No: 13272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (24)

 

chengste

Pro

The press like to show that Islam as a religion of peace and that it is a splinter group (extremists) that are carrying out the violence but I am going to show that Islam is a religion of violence and anger, this discussion will be limited to Islam and what they teach and believe. My opponent will need to be able to argue and prove that it just the extremist who holds to an improper interpretation of the Qur'an. I look forward to debating this with you
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent for issuing this challenge openly. I will not hesitate to put forth definitions and rules in order to avoid debating anything off-topic. I look forward to making it evident that Islam is not a religion of hatred and violence, and I hope that both we debaters and you readers will enjoy following the debate.

-- Definitions --

Hate: To feel hostility or animosity toward.[D]
Violence: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.[D2]

-- Rules --

1. No semantical arguments.
2. No violation of definitions.
3. No insults. We need a civilized debate.

-- Arguments --

1. Hate and violence

It is very important for people to understand that violence itself does not necessarily constitute hate. If a person who you love tries to jump out of a window to harm himself severely, you do nothing hateful in pulling him/her and maybe dealing a few hits in order to prevent him from moving. It may be violent, but absolutely not hateful. Logically speaking it is violent, but relatively speaking, it is less violent than if he/she jump out of the window and died. In this case, saving the person using violence is the best option and is, in fact, peaceful rather than violent. That is because the long-term effect is very important indeed.

2. Islamic violence

Islam has never preached hatred and violence against any innocent people. My opponent mentioned the interpretation of extremists, which, I presume, means that according to them, Islam does preach hatred and violence in the sense that it does it against innocent people, not just the criminal ones. My role is to prove that it does not do such a thing against innocent people at all.

3. The Qur'an

The Qur'an is a book that is deliberately misinterpreted by people who want to prove that Islam is a religion of hate and violence. However, those people do it by quoting verses out of context or without their historical meaning. I will give examples.

[Qur'an 2:190] "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

We see fighting being prescribed in the Qur'an being about defense. There is no doubt about that when this verse is read.

[Qur'an 2:191] "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."

But it happens that people take e.g. this verse to prove that Islam tells you to kill all non-believers no matter of what. This is indeed a monstrous thing to do. Attacking a major religion and religious group in the world through deliberate misinterpretation is a terrible thing to do. Why do they also not quote the next verses to people?

[Qur'an 2:192] "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Qur'an 2:193] "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

Is this a religion of anger, violence, and hate? Is this religion all those things because it tells its followers to fight oppression?

Another example is 8:60 of the Qur'an:

"Against them [non-Muslims] make ready your strength to the utmost of your power..."

This is speaking of a historical context. However, even if we ignore it, we know that it speaks of defense. All we have to do is read the next verse, 8:61:

"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)."

Where are people to quote this?

Moving on, the Qur'an promotes love and peace between Muslims and non-Muslims across all of the earth.

[Qur'an 25:63] "And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, 'Peace!'"

[Qur'an 4:90] "Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them."

[Qur'an 60:8] "God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable."

[Qur'an 49:13] "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous."

The last verse among the ones above is extraordinary peaceful. God creates us and divided us into nations, groups, etc. so that we can learn from each other share good deeds with each other through wisdom that we have acquired in our own ways. Had the Qur'an been wanting everyone to be under one nation and live under oppression, it would never have mentioned something it did in 49:13.

I can come with numerous other verses. However, I will leave it to my opponent for now because I want him to present his arguments, which I will analyze. I thank him in advance.

-- References --

[D] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[D2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Qur'an: http://www.usc.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
chengste

Pro

I thank my opponent for his willingness to debate this, my first debate. I am ok with your definitions with the following additions:

Violence –
1.Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
2.Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
3.Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
4.an unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force, esp such as tends to overawe or intimidate
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My opponent attempts to portray Islam as a peaceful religion, and the acts of violence are carried out by "extremist." This remains to be seen. He begins by using the Qur'an and gives an example of a something that can be interpreted in several ways he uses:
2:190 "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."
He then states " We see fighting being prescribed in the Qur'an being about defense" using vs 192 to back his idea that this use of force is in defense. The question then becomes defense of what, his inference here is that this is a physical attack, but a more careful examination of vs. 192 would show that force is to be used against those who do not believe as you do. For proof we look at the end of the vs. which I quote "… Such is the reward of those who suppress faith" suppressing a faith does not indicate physical suppression but a disagreeing with the way another believes. So unfortunately for my opponent, and the world, this is a point where the Qur'an is encouraging violence, against those who don't believe like Islam wants with no physical attack present I thank my opponent for proving this point.
But for those who may feel this is an isolated quote from the Qur'an I offer these vs.:
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."
2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."
3:157-158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."
3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."
3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."
4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…"
4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).
5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."
5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."
8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war ... he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed)."

Now if these again where my only evidence I would agree the argument while complete would be weak, but yet there are many more vs. in the Qur'an like these for the sake of time I will move on. As I stated if I only I had quotes from the Qur'an then it could be argued that these are open for interpretation so what other evidence is there. Lets take a look.

I offer the hadith collection of Bukhari for those who do not know this is the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam second only to the Qur'an. We have the following quotes:
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'" (vol. 4, p. 55)
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)
"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land…" (vol. 4, p. 161)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (vol. 9, p. 45)
"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), ‘Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him. The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy." (vol. 4, pp. 181-182)
"Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (vol. 8, pp. 519-520)
"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (vol. 4, pp. 158-159)

Next we have the actions of the prophet himself, 26 times he lead people into battle against those who did not believe as he was teaching. As written about in the book The Life of Muhammad by A.Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. Here are some more of the sayings and actions found in this biography:
'Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders … The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God (p. 232)
"Kill any Jew that falls into your power" a direct command from Muhammad (p.369)
In one day 600-900 Jewish men where beheaded (p.464)

More to come
Mirza

Con

I have too little character space to rebut all that. Does my opponent expect me to be able to use 50,000 characters, perhaps? He even ends the round by saying "more to come." Yes, more copy-paste to come.

-- Arguments --

1. The only part of my entire arguments that my opponent attempted to refute was the one about verse 2:192. He said, "The question then becomes defense of what, his inference here is that this is a physical attack, but a more careful examination of vs. 192 would show that force is to be used against those who do not believe as you do. For proof we look at the end of the vs. which I quote..."

That is not true. Verse 2:191 says, "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." That is not verse 2:192. Moreover, my opponent completely ignores verse 192 which says, "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." If they cease, it means "if they offer peace." Suppressing Faith is a reference to the non-Muslims who suppressed Muslims and attacked them and their religion.

"So unfortunately for my opponent, and the world, this is a point where the Qur'an is encouraging violence, against those who don't believe like Islam wants with no physical attack present I thank my opponent for proving this point."

There is no such evidence. My opponent presented absurd arguments by completely ignoring verses which say that if the enemy offers peace, Muslims must accept it. Furthermore, is there even a need for me to make a case here? I already came with arguments before this round and my opponent came with almost no one single rebuttal. The only attempt got torn apart, too. If he wants me to defend Islam, then he should not just copy-paste tons of verses that I have no space to refute whatsoever.

2. Rebuttals of arguments against Qur'anic verses

a) 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."

There is nothing wrong with this verse. Verse 2:190, which is in the same chapter, has already made it clear that fighting is for defense purposes. It means that any other verse that speaks of fighting clearly does it in the context of self-defense. Also, this is a historical verses of enemies of Muslims being the oppressors.

[Qur'an 2:217] "... Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can."

We can undoubtedly see that when the Qur'an says "[they] fighting you..." it immediately speaks of fighting back. There is nothing wrong with this.

b) 2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."

My opponent has deliberately misquoted the Qur'an. Verse 2:224 says, "And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things."

Do I even have to explicate? The verse says that God's name should not be an excuse in oaths against doing good, acting rightly, or making peace between people. What is wrong with this?

c) 3:157-158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."

Why does my opponent not attempt to elaborate on the meanings of all these verses? If there is a problem with 3:157-158, then he should address it. Merely quoting this will not help him. Let us again see what the Qur'an says about peace in this context.

[Qur'an 3:159] "Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust."

Where is my opponent to quote this?

d) 3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

There is nothing wrong with this. Those who are slain in God's way are those who have fought against oppression and corruption. I will prove that (as I have already done).

e) 3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."

This is a bad citation of the verse, and there is, again, no argument against it.

[Qur'an 3:195] "And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."

f) 4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."

[Qur'an 4:101] "When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."

This verse is a good example of a historical one. In order to save space, I will refer to a commentary of this verse which explains everything in detail. See commentary #132 and #133 in source #1 please.

g) 4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

My opponent misquotes the Qur'an by a great deal. This is egregious conduct. If he wishes to debate, then he should be fair and just. It is true that these verses speak about war, but the Qur'an tells why.

[Qur'an 4:75] "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

Who are the oppressors? Is Islamic being hatefully violent by calling for protection of innocent people?

h) 5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

I want - wholeheartedly - ask my opponent what is wrong with this verse. Is someone strives with might and main for mischief through land, does he deserve to remain unpunished? Does the religion of my opponent say this, too? I think not. In fact, he should examine his own holy book if he wishes to see what hateful violence is. He attacks the Qur'an in an egregious way without elaborating on the arguments.

-- Conclusion --

So far, my opponent has barely attempted to rebut my arguments, has made too few arguments in favor of his case, and he has copy-pasted all of it. I have almost run out of character space and there are more verses to address, but that is not my fault. It is his fault because he does not comprehend his quotations. He should come with his own arguments.

-- References --

[1] http://www.islamicstudies.info...
Debate Round No. 2
chengste

Pro

First let me address those who don't like facts when people debate, would you prefer I just gave my opinion? Then you would claim I had no basis for my belief.

This debate is about Islam and its promotion of hate, the verses in round 2 are good quotes from the Qur'an read for yourself. My opponent, first tries to imply they are poor translations again to the people I say read for yourself. My opponent then says this "Suppressing Faith is a reference to the non-Muslims who suppressed Muslims and attacked them and their religion.' So then not believing as you do and speaking out would be considered an attack on your religion and as such allow the use of violence against those people?

Next he asks and so have many why just post a bunch of quotes from the Qur'an? Simply, to show that there are many verses in the Qur'an which advocate the use of violence, against those who do not believe as you do, "suppressing faith" so lets define this term
Suppress - verb (used with object) from (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
1. to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.): to suppress the Communist party.
2. to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).
3. to keep in or repress (a feeling, smile, groan, etc.).
4. to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).
5. to stop or arrest (a flow, hemorrhage, cough, etc.).
6. to vanquish or subdue (a revolt, rebellion, etc.); quell; crush.
7. Electricity . to reduce or eliminate (an irregular or undesired oscillation or frequency) in a circuit.
So keep or repress your religion gives you the right to use force? And you would call this peaceful?

But, as I state in round 2 if it where just quotes from the Qur'an then yes this would be a weak argument, for yes there are also quotes to help the weak and poor. Unfortunately it is not just the Qur'an, and my opponent decided to completely ignore the hadith collection of Bukhar and the actions of the prophet that I listed in round 2.

So I bring forth the Islamic fatwa for those who do not know what this is I offer this definition:
In Islam, a fatwa is a legal decree which is made by someone who has extensive knowledge of Islamic law. (http://www.wisegeek.com...)

To speak of this I first bring the name of Salman Rushdie who wrote a book that attacked on the Qur'an, a fatwa was made that he should die and yes he is still alive but there have been many attmpts:
•February 12, 1989: Six people are killed and 100 injured when 10,000 attack the American Cultural Center in Islamabad, Pakistan protesting against Rushdie and his book.
•February 13, 1989: One person is killed and over 100 injured in anti-Rushdie riots in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir.
•February 24, 1989: Twelve people die and 40 are wounded when a large anti-Rushdie riot in Bombay, Maharashtra, India starts to cause considerable property damage and police open fire.
•February 28, 1989: Two bookstores in Berkeley, California, USA, are firebombed for selling the novel. 1989 firebombing of the Riverdale Press, a weekly newspaper in the Bronx, is destroyed by firebombs. A caller to 911 says the bombing was in retaliation for an editorial defending the right to read the novel, and criticizing the chain stores that stopped selling it.
•There is much more but I have much more to show to see the rest go to (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Here are some more fatwas against people calling for their death:
Jerry Falwell: television preacher

Taslima Nasreen: newspaper columnist who is critical of the treatment of women under Islam

Isloma Daniel: journalist for suggesting that the prophet may have chosen a wife from one of the Miss World contest.

Raheel Raza: a Muslim rights activist who advocates for gender equality, she became the first women to lead mixed gender prayers in Canada

Anyone who translates Rushdie's book to date 38 people have been killed

Molly Norris: cartoonist who drew the prophet in a bear suit for a South Park episode

There are many, many more my opponent states that "that fighting is for defense purposes" so then how where these people causing you physical distress that you needed to defend yourself against? This is peaceful?

Next we need to quickly look at Sharia Law, is the sacred law of Islam. Muslims believe Sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law; namely, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur'an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Under Sharia law for a Muslim to convert to another religion, apostasy, is death, yes you are to be killed if you change your relegion. My opponent would like you to believe that this is peaceful, loving act of a religion

Under Sharia law it is permissible to beat your wife because she is being "rebellious" or least the husband feels she is. The wife cannot refuse to have sex with her husband if he wants it. Oh yes there are restrictions you cannot hit her in the face or beat her to hard.

Under Sharia law a woman can be forced to marry someone she does not want to marry. And it goes on and on.

Then we have the actions of the people themselves:
When the murderer of over 270 people was returned to his home country, from a compassionate Scottish government he was greeted by the son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and escorted home, while thousands of me threw flower petals. http://www.timesrecordnews.com...

When thousands of people will murdered on September 11th what was the reaction of the Muslim people? I remember http://littlegreenfootballs.com... I also remember the same celebrations in Dearborn Michigan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.

Who can forget last November when French Muslims set the country ablaze? http://goliath.ecnext.com...

There are many more examples of celebrations of terrorist, like these two., or of Muslims causing civil unrest Why do so many vs. of the Qur'an advocate fighting those physically who do not believe as you do? Why are actions of the prophet against those who did not believe as he wanted them to kill them? Is this peaceful? Then we have multitudes celebrating the actions of these. as my opponent would say small group of extremist when we could see with our own eyes the very large crowds celebrating.

And finally we have the peace loving organizations like: the PLO, al qaida, Hezbollah we all know how peaceful these groups are. If Islam where a peacful religion they would come out against groups like these.

If my argument was just using the Qur'an one could say that it was mis-interpretations and then point to the places where the Qur'an states to help others. Or if was just on the hadith you could say that it was open to interpretation, but my argument is using the Qur'an, hadith, words of the prophet, Sharia law, actions of the people around the world and there leaders. If my argument had just one piece of evidence then it could be claimed it was my ability to interpret that was bad but my evidence is not! My evidence is at every turn of the Muslim faith there is violence from how they treat their families at home to how they treat the world.

To end I would like to point out one more thing, in Islam it is ok to lie and deceive as long as it done to further the faith to prove this I give you these vs: Qur'an (16:106) -Qur'an (3:28) - Qur'an (9:3) - Qur'an (2:225) -Qur'an (66:2) - Qur'an (3:54)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Mirza

Con

I wonder whether or not I should reply because my opponent makes void claims and ignores my arguments. If he wants to speak negatively against Islam, then he needs to disprove my arguments in favor of it. He has not done that.

1. Rebuttals part 1

1.1 Suppress

My opponent rather wanted to spend time providing a definition of "suppress" instead of refuting my other more important arguments. In fact, he even ignored most of my argument concerning that. The Qur'an makes it very clear that this is about suppressing Muslims, and by suppressing Muslims one suppresses Faith. Muslims, during the revelation of the Qur'an, were indeed oppressed by non-Muslims, including Pagans who had a big problem with monotheism. As a matter of fact, we can easily see how different translations reflect this:

Comparative translations of a faction of Surah al-Baqara, chapter 2, verse 191:

Yusuf Ali: "Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."
Pickthal: "Such is the reward of disbelievers."
Shakir: "such is the recompense of the unbelievers."

It cannot be more clear. There are different translations, and that is due to the historical context. Some translators translate this to reflect the fact that the disbelievers attacked Muslims, while others make it more simple and say "those who suppress faith." Withal, it does not matter; the context is clear, and my opponent ignores the fact that Muslims were under attack here. They had every right to defend themselves. The Qur'an was their commander. Had it not given them hope, they would not have been willing to fight against the aggressors.

[Qur'an 3:123] "Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude."

[Qur'an 8:26] "And remember when you were few, deemed weak in the land, fearing lest people might carry you off by force, but He sheltered you and strengthened you with His aid and gave you of the good things that you may give thanks."

Battle of Badr was the first battle between the Muslims and the disbelievers. Muslims were attacked and they had a little force to fight with, but they managed to win. None has a moral right to attack Muslims and say that their religion is violent for telling them to defend; none.

1.2 Ignoring arguments?

My opponent said that I decided to "completely ignore the hadith collection of Bukhar and the actions of the prophet that I listed in round 2." This is a horrible claim. I never decided to ignore those points. I had no space left for rebuttals, and had he comprehended his points, I might have had a greater chance in rebutting all of it. It is a very bad conduct to claim that your opponent ignores arguments when he attempted to refute all of them one by one. It is not my fault that I had no more character space. What is more is that my opponent was not being kind to leave the last round for rebuttals on my side. What he did was to move much deeper into all of this. Does he expect me to magically increase the character space?

2. Rebuttals part 2

2.1 Fatwa

A fatwa is not always correct. Islam does not consider any human being to be perfect, except the Prophets (peace be upon them). A fatwa - as has been correctly mentioned by my opponent - can be issued by a person who is a scholar or shaikh, or one who holds a similar degree. However, since human beings are not considered perfect, it is natural that they commit mistakes or possess views that are not correct. Those who issue fatwas can be very wrong about many things. However, we need to look at the majority. The majority opinion on issuing a fatwa (for capital punishment) concerning a person who is outside an Islamic nation is that it is not valid. Unless someone is inside an Islamic nation and commits the crime of blasphemy, then he is guilty. But if he is not there, his destiny will be met on al-Qiyamah. This is the Islamic view.

2.2 Shari'a Law

o Apostasy

The Islamic government has the option to choose a form of punishment for apostasy. Some choose capital punishment, and that can be for security reasons. This is in case of a person apostatizing and spreading his new religion in order to reduce the number of Muslims in an Islamic nation. Why should this be prevented? Let us look at the facts in the Middle East: There is most notably one non-Islamic nation there (if we exclude Cyprus), and that is Israel. The population of Israel is a mere number of circa seven million inhabitants, and about five million of them are Jews. Yet we have big issues in the Middle East concerning that. We have Muslims and Jews being in disputes over the land, history, and even theological viewpoints over the land of Israel.

Now, Medina in Saudi Arabia is one of the holiest areas in Islam, but that city was once Jewish. If we assume that the Saudi Arabian government let Jews all Muslims for belief in Judaism, and many Muslims followed their way, do people then expect peace in the Middle East? Do people think that Muslims and Jews will be in agreement over the area of Medina, Saudi Arabia, etc.? I certainly hope not. People can easily come to agreement when the concern is the future, but not history. In this case - as is actually always the case - we cannot change history, and we cannot change the fact that history will always affect our opinions. It will also affect the opinions of Jews if they realized that they have an open way toward getting Medina back. Would Muslims ever approve of this? Not by any means.

There are many more things to be said concerning punishment of apostasy. Israel has been plagued by disputes between Muslims and Jews, and will unfortunately continue being plagued by the huge disagreements. If people do not want more conflicts in the Middle East, then they can neither morally nor logically argue against punishment for apostasy and propagation of a new religion in Islamic nations that are in the Middle East. My opponent as a problem with a building being stormed by 10,000 protesters, but how would he react if perhaps millions of Muslims and Jews, and perhaps Christians too, clashed in e.g. Saudi Arabia concerning land, history, etc.? Will he ever be happy with this? I hope not. Neither should he be happy for his argument against Shari'a Law and apostasy.

o Wife beating

I have very little character space left, so I will make my next rebuttals short. In Islam, a man is not allowed to beat his wife. He is rather allowed to discipline her, and vice versa. A man has a higher level of testosterone, which makes him more aggressive. It is a fact that the mental state of a person calms down if he/she e.g. throws something or hits something when the person is very angry. Because a man is far more aggressive, he is allowed to do nothing more than to pick on his wife with something that is very light, where the face must be absolutely avoided, and no harm must be inflicted whatsoever. He only needs to calm down, and his wife needs to realize that he is angry. Something light is e.g. a pencil. The wife has the right to refuse to cook and do other things for her husband. Moreover, "if" a wife wants to be unfair toward her husband, she has the right to apply to the marriage contract that he must never "beat" her at all. So, if a woman wants this, there is no problem with applying it.

3. Extremist

Under 700 char. left. I would need a lot more to refute all that. However, here are short non-Muslim comparisons:

3.1 Crusades
3.2 WWII
3.3 Yugoslav War
3.31 Srebrenica Genocide
3.4 Invasion of Iraq
3.5 Invasion of Afghanistan
3.6 Popes throughout history condemning works of Muslims
3.7 Christians oppressing Indians
3.71 ---- // ---- Maoris

I can go on for hours. If my opponent believes that the actions of few random men in history make a religion what it is, then I do not understand why he indulges in the double-standard and admires Christianity. I have made my case for this debate. I thank my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Most of those who voted for me are NOT Muslims. Even if they were, objective voting counts nonetheless.
Posted by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
The votes for this were very biased. I think the majority of the voters believe in the Islamic religion. I agree that Mirza won, but the difference between the points are because of biased voters. If these voters were not Islamic, the points would have had a smaller difference.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
That point works only if Islam is defined by the actions of Muslims. This debate, and all of my others on the matter, place a wall between Islam as a concept and Muslims.
Posted by ThomasTownend 3 years ago
ThomasTownend
Isn't there the immediate paradox when trying to refute this proposal of Islam actually having a perpetual sectarian conflict within itself between the Sunni and Shia sects (just look at Iraq for bloody evidence of such); Hardly peaceful or non-violent is it.
Posted by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
@Mirza
"you cannot logically ask for more" when the Oklahoma building was bombed no one danced in the streets, when the USS Cole was bombed people danced in the street, no one turned in the terrorist. Can I expect more yes, shutdown those who promote the as you claim "extremist" don't give them a TV station, a school, you tell me could more be done?

@ m93samman
Christianity is, for now any how, prevelant in the US, we do not celebrate those who claim there evil dead was from God. The man who shot the abortion clinic doctor has never been celebrated, yes I understand the US is not loved everywhere, but does that not show the hate we discussed??
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
In addition to what Mirza said,

1) Why do you assume that we KNOW where the extremists are? You think we hide them in our basements?

2) People around the world, not just Muslims, felt that the US needed to have a blow dealt to them anyways. They are the epitome of modern imperialism; just letting you know, there were Muslims working in the twin towers who died as well. How do you think their families felt?
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
1. There are no "leaders" of Islam. There are scholars, orators, etc. These people condemn terrorism as much as is needed. If you listen to Dr. Zakir Naik, Abdur Rahim Green, Yusuf Estes, and lots of others, you will never hear them promote terrorism, but condemn it, especially 9/11. These people are very famous and popular, and when they condemn terrorism, you cannot logically ask for more.

2. Many people do not realize the evils of such an event like 9/11. Some Muslims might have been happy for it, but they should not be happy for such a horrible event. If you go to countries where Christians are prevalent, you will also see some of them praising some evils. My native land is filled with such people, and they call themselves Christians.
Posted by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
@ m93samman
"The extremist part of Islam isn't Islam"

Then I have two questions:
1. Then why do not the leaders of Islam come out and condem and help arrest the extremist?
2. Then why where there celbrations thru out the Islamic world on 9/11?
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
By the same standard of judging a religion by its most extreme members, Christianity teaches that murder is okay.
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Scott Roeder says his faith justified killing an abortion doctor
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
The extremist part of Islam isn't Islam.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Isocrates 6 years ago
Isocrates
chengsteMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
chengsteMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by Stihl_Soldier 6 years ago
Stihl_Soldier
chengsteMirzaTied
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 gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
chengsteMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Pem 6 years ago
Pem
chengsteMirzaTied
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 trey.h52 6 years ago
trey.h52
chengsteMirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
chengsteMirzaTied
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 adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
chengsteMirzaTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by MichaelT 6 years ago
MichaelT
chengsteMirzaTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 6 years ago
jjmd280
chengsteMirzaTied
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:06