The Instigator
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
MouthWash
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Islam is a religion of peace.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,618 times Debate No: 23721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Wallstreetatheist

Con

Resolution: Islam is a religion of peace.

Rules:
(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Must insert at least one witty quote per round.
(6) By accepting the debate, you accept the terms

Rounds:
(1) Acceptance + Internet High Five
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)


"DOGMA: A lie imperiously reiterated and authoritatively injected into the mind of one or more persons who believe they believe what some one else believes." -Ambrose Bierce

"The difference between religions and cults is determined by how much real estate is owned." -Frank Zappa

Definitions:
Islam - a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God.

Muslim - An adherent of Islam.

Peace - Freedom from violence and war.


I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.

Kittens!
MouthWash

Pro

I accept. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and I intend to demonstrate it in this debate.

Moderation is part of faith, so those who accuse Muslim schools of fostering fanaticism should learn a bit more about Islam. -Cat Stevens
Debate Round No. 1
Wallstreetatheist

Con

It doesn't really make sense for me to go first on this debate. I'll let pro give the first argument, since he is taking the affirmative stance, and then in the fourth round he will have a flex round (just type "Hey" or something). Good luck.
MouthWash

Pro

Really, changing the rules in the middle? All right, this'll be quick. Although I do find it funny that a religion that has it's own name based off of a word for peace is now widely regarded as violent.

Muhammad said "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." [1. http://www.cair.com...]

"Repel evil with that which is better." is a verse from the Quran encouraging kindness instead of retribution. [2. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...]

Here are two verses from the section of the Quran which refers to Jihad:

1. "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities."

2. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers."
[3. http://www.answering-islam.org...]

It is clear here that the Quran does not advocate holy wars or unprovoked attacks on "unbelievers."

When Saladin, the Arab commander who drove the Crusaders out of the holy land, captured Jerusalem, he not only signed a peace treaty and saved the Christians from dying but allowed them to continue to worship there [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1187)]

If you look into Islamic history, it shows that the religion originally spread through missionary activities rather than violence [4. http://saif_w.tripod.com...]

In general, it is Christian funamentalists and conspiracy theorists that despise Islam. Accusing it of being a violent religion and taking passages from the Quran out of context merely shows a denial of truth and a desperate need to affirm a preexisting bias against it.

I now turn over the debate to Con.

"Victory is changing the hearts of your opponents by gentleness and kindness." -Saladin.
Debate Round No. 2
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I thank my opponent for adjusting the debate to fit in a more coherent fashion.

The problem with cherry-picking the earlier verses of peace from the Quran is the Islamic use of abrogation and Taqiyya (holy deception). ABROGATION-- It is explained in the Qur’an that if two or more passages contradict or conflict with each other, the passage written later abrogates the ones written earlier. The peaceful, tolerant passages that were transcribed early in the prophetic career of Mohammad have been abrogated (cancelled and annulled) by the more violent and less tolerant, later passages (e.g. “the Muslims themselves know that such early verses as 'There is no compulsion in religion' and 'If you kill one person it is as if you killed the whole of humanity' are null, void and abrogated by the later 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them'.” [0] TAQIYYA-- Muslims are permitted to lie to non-believers about the truth of Islam to further Islam. Many of them quote the peaceful verses without indicating that they were abrogated by later verses.


Although I do find it funny that a religion that has it's own name based off of a word for peace is now widely regarded as violent.
Islam means submission. In Arabic, words only have one root, and the root word of Islam is "al-Silm," which means "submission.” This is accepted by virtually all Muslim scholars. [1] It is only lesser-educated Muslims and outsiders who make the claim that Islam means peace. UK Muslim leader, Anjem Choudary confirms this, “Islam does not mean peace. It means submission.” [2] Quran 3:19 also confirms, “The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.” Not only does the Quran call Muslims to submit to Allah, but it orders Muslims to force people of other religions to convert to Islam until they are under Islamic rule. Quran 9:29 confirms this, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” [4]

It is clear here that the Quran does not advocate holy wars or unprovoked attacks on "unbelievers."
The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. Furthermore, Allah recommends death and destruction to disbelievers:

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.

2:193b
But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too.

2:193a
Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people.

4:89
Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

4:91
If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant.

If you look into Islamic history, it shows that the religion originally spread through missionary activities rather than violence

“Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.” [5] Islam swept through the Middle East and North Africa at the point of a sword.

Accusing it of being a violent religion and taking passages from the Quran out of context merely shows a denial of truth and a desperate need to affirm a preexisting bias against it.
No one needs to take the Quran out of context to demonstrate that the passages are laden with cruelty, violence, and intolerance.

When Saladin, the Arab commander who drove the Crusaders out of the holy land, captured Jerusalem, he not only signed a peace treaty and saved the Christians from dying but allowed them to continue to worship there.

This is not to be attributed to the Quran or Islam in general, but diplomacy of a great leader. Also, you sort of have to overlook the millions of people who were killed in those wars to glean something positive out of this statement.

My quote is also a question to Pro. "If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?"


Sources
[0] http://crombouke.blogspot.com...
[1] http://wikiislam.net...
[2] http://www.jihadwatch.org...
[3] http://www.cmje.org...
[4] http://www.cmje.org...
[5] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Thank you.
MouthWash

Pro

Time to wrap up.

Rebuttal


"Islam means submission."


The Arabic word 'Islam' does mean 'submission', but derives from a word meaning 'peace' [1.http://www.islamicity.com...]. Interpreted religiously it means voluntary submission to the will of God. Some Muslim scholars define Islam as submission through peace; others define it as peace through submission.

"It is explained in the Qur’an that if two or more passages contradict or conflict with each other, the passage written later abrogates the ones written earlier."

Let's take a look, then.

Verse 9.29

The idolators in this verse are actually the pagans of Mecca, who tried to kill Muhammad and violated their treaty. Here is another verse from the same chapter: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers."

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

That is called the Verse of the Sword, which you would undoubtedly have heard of if you had done the slightest research into the religion instead of just Googling anti-Islamic websites. Again, you have managed to take it completely out of context. The entire chapter nine is about making treaties with the idolators.

'And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them.' [2.http://quran.com...]

"The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death."

This is an outright lie. The Qur'an does not detail any punishment for apostasy except in the afterlife: [3.http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Verse 2:191

"The injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress, on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors." [4.http://www.religiousforums.com...]

"But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too."

It seems you didn't even bother to actually quote the verse and instead gave your own misquotation. Here is the real thing: "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

What this verse actually is referring are not mere "wrong-doers," as my opponent tried to insinuate with his arbitrary interpretation, but the oppressors [5. http://quran.com...]. The part about worship being for Allah is does not mean the idolators themselves, but until there is no more persecution of believers [6. http://www.altafsir.com...]

"If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant."

I have to wonder if my opponent really believes his own resolution. Even his own quoted verse says that killing the unbelievers is only justified when they don't offer peace. Even the verse directly behind it (v4:90) explicitly forbids aggression towards those who don't want war: "Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them." [7. http://quran.com...]

“Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.”

I would encourage my opponent to read about the Constitution of Medina, which gave non-Muslims equal rights under both God and the law. [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Muhammad also spared the lives of the Meccan civilians upon capturing the city.

His reign was inherently unstable due to the fact that he ruled over nomads, since they could simply move their tents and flocks outside Muhammad's territory to be free. His conquests were more defensive then aggressive measures [9. http://en.wikipedia.org...].

"Islam swept through the Middle East and North Africa at the point of a sword."

I see you decided to ignore my source.

"No one needs to take the Quran out of context to demonstrate that the passages are laden with cruelty, violence, and intolerance."

You do, apparently.

"This is not to be attributed to the Quran or Islam in general, but diplomacy of a great leader."

After a major victory at the Battle of Hattin, Saladin discovered that Raymond III, in his attacks on Muslim caravans, insulted Muhammad before murdering and torturing them. He personally executed Raymond for his crimes, but spared the life of Guy of Lusignan, who had also fought against him in the battle. He then said "It is not the wont of kings to kill kings; but that man had transgressed all bounds, and therefore did I treat him thus [10. http://en.wikipedia.org...].

If you need another example, he not only allowed the Frankish prisoners in Jerusalem to be ransomed back to the Crusaders, but freed many of their families who could not afford to do so. [10]


"Also, you sort of have to overlook the millions of people who were killed in those wars to glean something positive out of this statement."

This is referring to all the crusades. Saladin killed nowhere near that amount of people.

"My quote is also a question to Pro. "If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?"

You are confusing association with causation. This is a very basic logical fallacy, and something that I would expect from a ten-year old, not a debater. Muslim scholars from all over the world have attacked and denounced the terrorists' interpretation of Islam [11. http://en.wikipedia.org...].

Conclusion

My opponent has argued using unsubstantiated, flawed, and biased arguments. His sources seem to consist of blogs and radical websites. If I may quote one:

"Of course it isn't just the innocent and gullible who swallow the 'Religion of Peace' BS spread by the Muslims and their PC Marxist allies. The Marxists have drugged western culture with a Mickey Finn cocktail of post-modernism and multiculturalism which has suppressed rational analysis of Islam as being 'racist' and Islamophobic."

I am getting tired of this. I have heard all of your arguments before, presented better, without the inconsistencies and radical sources that you are utilising, but none of them have impressed me. You're totally and completely wrong. There is no causal link between Islam as a religion and terrorism.

"I believe in the religion of Islam. I believe in Allah and peace." -Muhammad Ali

Debate Round No. 3
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I concede due to college.
MouthWash

Pro

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
why muslims account has been closed.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
:( Damn you college!
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
And I kind of looked like a dumbass, too. Posted an ascii facepalm, but couldn't even do it right.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Austen, there is a certain burden of proof that is encountered when making claims. That logical foundation, the groundwork of the debate, is what can -and often does- make or break an argument.

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to discuss further strategy or argumentative tactic, but I'll post -one of my typically lengthy- RFD's in the comment section if I decide to judge the debate.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I knew I smelled refried beans.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
The first name is so badass, baby i know.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Yes I forgot.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
By Cat Stevens, do you mean Yusuf Islam? That has been his name since 1977...
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Thanks for the advice. Establishing that causal link will probably prove invaluable in this debate, especially since MouthWash is a great debater.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
It will be interesting to see how you establish an objective causal link between an idea and violence. Of course, I won't ask you to disclose that here.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB RTN1994 I am sad to see this debate conceded :(
Vote Placed by RTN1994 4 years ago
RTN1994
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Islam isn't a religion of peace. Listen to the imams on youtube, the one's who lead it. Muhmmad wanted war too!
Vote Placed by Jake2daBone 4 years ago
Jake2daBone
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Too bad Wallstreetatheist conceded, I thought he was doing well.
Vote Placed by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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: Obvious is obvious.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes. I think a religion is not defined by it's sacred books, but rather what adherents actually do. Hence not a very interesting debate.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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: This is why I learned to scroll through the debate before I read it :P Conduct point to Pro for concession
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
WallstreetatheistMouthWashTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments for obvious reasons. Conduct for the changing of the format after acceptance.