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

Islam is a religion of peace rather than the stereotypical Islam represented by the terrorists

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: 9/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 79437
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Islam is a religion of peace. The terrorists are not Muslims. They only portray themselves as Muslims but have tattoos which is strongly prohibited in Islam. Islam encourages not to force people to convert to Islam and not to harm even animals, plants, children and women in war. Terrorists just portray Islam as a terrorist religion but it is not because Islam encourages fight only in self defense. If terrorists are Muslims, then who are those fighting against the terrorists. Why would the Pakistani Army fight against the terrorists is they considered them as Muslims. Muslims never fight with other Muslims. So this shows Islam is a religion of peace.
As the Quran says,
"Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressor." Quran (2:190)
At another place it says,
"There is no virtue in much of their counsels: only in his who enjoins charity, kindness and peace among people..." Quran (4:114)
So Islam is a religion of peace and prosperity.


I accept.

In this debate I will take the stance that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but not detrimental to society. In fact, it is one of the bloodiest religions in theory. PLEASE DO NOT DISMISS MY CASE AS BEING "STEREOTYPICAL" OR "BIASED". I will present three main arguments to prove my rather controversial, but logical point. I propose Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but most Muslims are a PEOPLE of peace.

Let us define peace:
peace: freedom from or the cessation of war or violence

We kid ourselves if we tell each other we can live without war or violence. It is in human nature, embedded in our genes that we NEED to establish dominance over opposing groups, but this urge has been suppressed by modern society. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.


A. It is about what parts the practitioner wishes to follow.
It is undeniable that the Quran looks down upon today's accepted ideas, such as homosexuality. Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone..." In fact, it even teaches us that we should kill those guilty of it. However, we do not see our next door Muslim friends castrating everybody wearing rainbow shirts. It is about what parts of the Quran Muslims wish to accept and express. This is similar to how God (same guy as Allah) killed everyone in the way of the Jews, but Jews are probably the nicest people you will meet.

B. ISIL isn't wrong.
Yes, we see ISIL as a terrorist group. No longer do we fight against a faceless enemy, we now have an enemy that rallies under a banner. But sadly, ISIL is rarely wrong. On the contrary, they are a stickler for the Quran-- they follow every word to the letter, they obey the words of Allah to the syllable, and, hell, the officers have to memorize large chunks of it. But following orders doesn't make them wrong. Because ISIL is notorious for following every single word of the Quran and are so brutal of non-Islamic people tells us that Islam at the core is a very bloody religion.

C. Quran dictates when you should commit violence.
This argument supplements my case, and will be a series of quotes.

Prohibition of other gods (rather common). Death penalty for this crime (not so common)
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]"

Quran (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 Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Mutilation of enemies
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Allah-approved destruction
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

Now, I'd like to move onto my rebuttals.

1. Quran only advocates self defense.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find [unbelievers/usurpers]..."
Openly slay those who don't believe in Allah? Perfect example of self defense.

2. Muslims don't fight against Muslims
My opponent is using logical fallacies called "dicto simplificer". He generalizes Muslims into two separate fighting entities and tells us "since they're fighting each other", Muslim terrorists must not be Muslim. This is an overgeneralization and incorrect. The Pakistani Army is NOT simply "Muslim", just like how the American army isn't simply "Christian". And Muslim terrorists are the purest form of Islam you'll find anywhere in the world. Next, the "Muslims never fight with other Muslims" is-- please excuse my language-- BS. ISIL is murdering Muslim women by the hundreds if they refuse to join their "support groups" aka "army brothels" or refuse to pay an outrageous weekly tax. Is my opponent inferring that Muslim women are not human?

In conclusion, I stay firm behind my stance that Islam is a religion of violence, but Muslims today are a people of peace. Terrorists like ISIL only prove to show how brutal ancient religions like Islam are in their pure form. I would like to end with this-- "Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim."

Debate Round No. 1


Well i would recommend you to first of all mind your language in religious matters. Allah has commanded to go on war only when the infidels are on their extreme. The Talibans had done extreme in Pakistan. Thus the Pakistan Army is doing their operation, Zarb-e-Azb. And those terrorists who you consider as Muslims, are not Muslims. And in the case of prisoners of war, the Holy Prophet (SAW) forgave most of them, kept them as slaves or asked them to teach 10 Muslim children to get free. And he kept his promises. Only those who were most brutal were killed. And as you that Allah will send those "hypocrites" to Hell. But i am sorry to say Jihad in Islam is of many kinds. One way is to provide the finances of war. Or even to provide food for war is Jihad. Fighting in the way of Allah is Jihad is another form of Jihad and it is best. And also, you have proved that infidels are cowards whereas the "audacious" Muslims find them from where they are "hiding" and kill them. And as you said that Islam says to kill Homosexuals. Well i am afraid that those people had it done to their extreme. There are punishments in Islam. For example, sex before marriage in Islam, carries the punishment of 100 whips to both the man and and women, and stoning them. And if they live after that punishment, they are considered equally pious as compared to others. ISIS people are not Muslims. They are cowards. They kill women and children and the elderly. Islam prohibits in killing any of these people. Shirk (the association of Allah with other people) is considered the greatest of sins and is not forgivable by Allah. And that is why he orders such things. But if Muslims do this, and then for the rest of their life ask Allah for His forgiveness by crying and maybe whatever else; Allah may forgive them. Read the Quran further more in regard to enemies. If one wages war against the Muslims, Allah commands to fight against them. He uses such words so that Muslims are told of the fact in how to deal with people waging war against the Muslims.Well in the case of no prisoners, the Holy Prophet (SAW) had several prisoners in war in the Battle of Badr. He forgave most of them, and asked them to teach 10 Muslims to get their freedom. He only killed those who persecuted him the most. The people of Taif persecuted him so much that his shoes were full of blood, but when the Angel of death asked to kill them all, he asked Allah to guide them on the straight path. And after some years all the town of Taif were Muslims. ISIS people are not Muslims. Allah asked the Muslims to respect all other religions and not force people to convert to Islam. I therefore stand against your statement and ask you to study the Quran for further evidence.


At the end of your latest speech you implored me to study the Quran. So I have. I have a copy of the Quran sitting right next to me. And it's interesting for me to find this gem:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

I give you proof from the Quran that Allah commands Muslims to execute those who don't believe in him. This is undeniable; this is true in other religions as well. One must realize that these religions were conceived in a time where murder and war were capricious and numerous compared to today's civilization. I now ask my opponent:

If an American soldier kills a POW, does that mean he is not an American the moment he pulls the trigger? No. We arrest him, and we put him on trial under AMERICAN justice as an AMERICAN citizen for disobeying AMERICAN laws. How are Islamic jihadists different? Is it that fact that they're too busy killing each other (yes, in Yemen, Muslim shiites are massacring Muslim suunis by the dozens)?

I now turn to my audience.
My opponent is irrational. Given the day and time, I could easily argue for the other side. To debate, you need to understand your enemy. He refuses to see the other side of this coin. He refutes my arguments with flimsy, self-assured statements saying "Muslims don't kill other Muslims" and "ISIL isn't Muslim". He has no accountability, and at this point, I have to wonder if his arguments are to half-heartedly convince us, or rather to comfort himself. In fact, his whole case revolves around those two points. It is also true that I have shown sufficent evidence counteracting those claims. I give you five reasons why I have dominated this debate.
1) Shiites and suunis, both Muslim groups, have been locked in a decades old fight against each other, and it is not uncommon to see them killing each other. Islam is one of the only religions that have Muslim groups kill each other for believing in certain forms of Islam.
ISIL is Muslim, like it or not. They are the purest form of Islamic fighters ever to live, and my opponent has yet to make rebuttals to that.
3) My opponent refuses to clash my arguments. All he does is extend his own, while I have fought on both sides of this debate.
4) My opponent refuses to come out of religious context. He is quick to call me ignorant while his arguments are a hodgepodge of religious zeal.
5) My arguments were supported with quotes from the Quran that showed Allah's supposed teachings. I proved Muslims DO kill each other, and is one of the only religions that kill each other for their beliefs (seriously, do you see Catholics beat up Christians today?)

For these reasons, I believe the CON is winning this debate.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Mujtaba forfeited this round.


PRO has forfeited the last round. By the laws of debate and common sense, CON takes the round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DeltaMed910 1 year ago
Did you know that in Nazi Germany, only 5% of Germans were actually Nazis and they ended up killing millions of Jews nonetheless. 7% of Muslims are terrorists. I'll give it a moment for that to sink in.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
ban islam..
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
pakistani Army fight against the terrorists, lol thats why half of them knew where Bin Laden was, and didn't bother telling anyone.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
the just lead to youtube start page
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
ban islam
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff Con refuted pro, but pro didn't refute con
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff