The Instigator
AKhattak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Islam is a religion of peace

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...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 74291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

AKhattak

Pro

The name Islam in Arabic means peace. I will put forward arguments in favor of Islam as a religion of peace while Con will make arguments for Islam as a religion of terror.
You can only quote the Qur'an or the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.
No quoting ISIS, Al-Qaeda or other terror groups since the debate is not about them but rather about Islam. They may claim to but do not represent Islam.
Theunkown

Con

I assume that I can just get started straight away with the debate as Pro has not said so otherwise.

Islam in arabic does not mean peace. This is an outright false statement that is proven wrong with a simple google search. Every Pro-Islamic website defines the world 'Islam' as submission (to the will of Allah/God[1]) and Muslims are those who do submit.

Burden of Proof is on Pro to show that 'Islam is a religion of peace'.

First of all, what in the world does 'religion of peace' even mean? It is a common term used by many people willing to portray Islam positively, but is a rather meaningless phrase when you really think about it.


Once Pro properly and reasonably defines religion of peace, then and only then can I make refutations.

I would also appreciate it if Pro could use reason and logic to debate since many religious debates I have seen on this site (Muslim, Christian, you name it) quickly devolves into little more than preaching and counter-preaching/ignoring preaching.

I don't want to be refuting preaching about how I am going to go to hell in this debate (hell is by the way not a peaceful concept and is rather a huge injustice).


Sources:
[1]http://www.barghouti.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
AKhattak

Pro

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, safeness and peace. It is associated with both Salema(submit) and Salam(peace).

Religion of Peace: A religion that teaches to prefer/promote peace and peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Religion of Terror: A religion that teaches to prefer/promote violence and terrorism.

I will be using reason, logic and teachings of Islam to justify my point of view and I will not be preaching about why you should join Islam this debate is not about that. Do not worry I will not condemn you to Hellfire because it is not my place to do so matters of faith are between you and Allah only He decides who to forgive and who not to forgive. I am a Muslim hence i am taking the existence of Allah for granted hope you do not have an issue with that.

I will start my opening statement with this:
In the Surah Al-Anfal(Surah #8) from verse 1 to 60 Allah sets down the rules of engagement for a Muslim. What he should do in a battle, the rules regarding spoils of war and cites the battle of Badr as an example and a warning. A warning to the disbelievers showing what happens when they go against the will of Allah and an example to the believers of what happens when they follow the rules of Allah to increase their faith. But at verse 61 there is a shift in subject as an ending to the portion about battles and rules of engagement Allah sends this command "And, O Prophet, if the enemies incline to peace, you should also incline to it and put your trust in Allah: indeed He is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.". What is the significance of this verse? If Islam preaches violence as the only means to achieve their goal why then add this verse about peace? This verse was revealed to set a bound on Muslims to stop people from interpreting the verses as a justification for needless wars. Religious Scholars agree that this verse was revealed to show Muslims that peace is always the best option and to stop the spilling of blood needlessly. Humans cannot know what is in the hearts of other humans hence if a group approaches you with proposal of peace accept it with open arms do not reject it based on a doubt that the intentions of the people may not be pure. If they are sincere about the peace proposal then needless bloodshed can be stopped and even if they hold bad intentions in their hearts Allah knows everything have faith in Allah and He will keep you from harm, but peace if it can be achieved is the top priority.
Theunkown

Con

Quotes from Pro are italicized and underlined like so
Quranic versus plus verse number reference shall be italicized like so

Thank you Pro for focusing on Logical arguments and not simply ad hominems about me being the devil's servant or being doomed to hell.

Speaking of the hellfire.

" Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise." (Surat An-Nisa 4:56)[1]
Basically those who disbelieve the Quranic verses shall be burnt. The citizens of the world must dance to Quran's tune or must be burnt, please explain to me how this is peace.

Even IF this quote does not refer to literally burning people alive on Earth, it surely refers to burning people in hell. Is this not terror? Threatening people to be burnt for eternity (terrorizing them) just for being an atheist or a follower of a non-Quran based religion?

Pro has quoted the Surat Al Anfa which discusses rules of engagement. The first two times Allah is mentioned is when people should be fearing him, which is reasonably equated to terror.

Terror: A state of intense fear[2]
The Surat al Anfa is just a minor example, there are many other times where fear is used as an instrument of obedience. I am sure readers will have heard about how obedience and subordination to God is important in Islam.

If they[Enemies in war] are sincere about the peace proposal then needless bloodshed can be stopped and even if they hold bad intentions in their hearts Allah knows everything have faith in Allah and He will keep you from harm

Even if the enemies are sincere and the Muslim warlord does not want peace (because he is winning the war or for whatever reason), the Muslim warlord can simply accuse the enemy of not being sincere (even if they are) and continue the war. There is no advocation for pacificism in the Quran (a pacifist Quran would help Pro's case).

Allah knows everything have faith in Allah and He will keep you from harm

Please then explain to me why Allah did not protect the innocent men, women and children from harm against the crusaders, the United States, Al Qaeda and other extremists groups, The Soviet Union, Israel and any other group that has invaded the lands which has Muslim majority population.

Why was all of the Islamic world (with the exception of Turkey and Saudi Arabia) colonized or turned into puppet states by European powers if Allah is supposed to keep you from harm?

This verse was revealed to set a bound on Muslims to stop people from interpreting the verses as a justification for needless wars.
Yet the Islamic world engaged in equal number of wars, if not more, compared to the non-Islamic world. This is true both Historically and in the modern day.

Religious Scholars agree that this verse was revealed to show Muslims that peace is always the best option and to stop the spilling of blood needlessly.
Religious Scholars while knowledgable on the subject, are terribly biased, readers and of course Pro must always always always keep this in mind.


Sources:
[1] http://quran.com...;
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
AKhattak

Pro


I will open my second statement with this. I think Con has missed my definitions. I clearly stated teaches to prefer/promote’ hence it is implied that it tells its followers to prefer/promote a path of peace or a path of violence and terrorism. This debate is about the teachings of Islam whether they teach a Muslim to take the path of peace or commit acts of terrorism. None of the arguments of Con touches upon that point but I will not back away and will answer everything to the best of my abilities.



The verse of Surat An-Nisa has been taken out of context. If you read the preceding verses you realize that this is directed at those people who in their hearts know that Islam is the true religion yet still refuse to follow it. If an employee of a certain company knows that the orders have come from the CEO but refuses to carry them out then does not the CEO hold the right to punish that employee? This is the same concept except on a larger scale. The concept of Heaven and Hell is the concept of reward and punishment, It is in Human nature to avoid punishment and strive to achieve a reward that is the best form of motivation you can offer a Human Being. This method of reward and punishment is how we teach children right from wrong so why can it not be used to teach adults right from wrong as well, for humans (young and old) you need reward and punishment to be beyond their imagination and nothing is more beyond imagination then the concept of Heaven and Hell.



For the verses of Surah Al-Anfal you are referring to they are present as warning for the believers to distance themselves from evil lest they incur the wrath of Allah using as example those who have already incurred the wrath of Allah by openly intending to commit harm to the Messenger of Allah Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W).



This is just a small demo of how change in context changes the entire meaning behind a verse. Verses that in themselves seem cruel and unjust if put into context may seem fair and just. I will not deny the existence of verses that condemn disbelievers to Hellfire but why is topic for a debate itself and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand hence I will not go into it. For future references cite verses of Quran or Qoutes of the Prophet (S.A.W) that actually incite Muslims to commit terrorism.



While submission and obedience is a major factor in Islam so is forgiveness. One of the names of Allah is “Al Rahman” the Merciful and another is “Al Ghafoor” the most forgiving. "Say: 'O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins (except shirk): for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'" (Surah Zamr 39:53)



Even if the enemies are sincere and the Muslim warlord does not want peace (because he is winning the war or for whatever reason), the Muslim warlord can simply accuse the enemy of not being sincere (even if they are) and continue the war. There is no advocation for pacificism in the Quran (a pacifist Quran would help Pro's case). In that scenario the Muslim Warlord will be going against the command of Allah and hence doing an evil deed, If you read the verse closely it says accept peace and put your trust in Allah. The reason for this is that Knowledge of what lies in a person’s heart is considered knowledge of the unseen and this is what Allah says about knowledge of the unseen Allah is not going to disclose to you (the unseen) what is hidden in the realm beyond the reach of perception, but He chooses from among His Messengers whom He wills (to intimate such knowledge). So (about this knowledge of the unseen) believe in Allah and in His Messengers; and if you believe and become God-fearing, yours will be a great reward.” (Surah Al imran 3:179). To claim to have a power that Allah has not given to any humans accept the chosen Prophets is like saying that the person is better than the Prophets hence wrong. It is then the duty of the people around him to stop him from doing the evil deed and take the side of justice as evidenced by the following: “O Faithful! Stand up for the sake of Allah to be witness of Justice and do not leave justice for the sake of enmity. That is near faith. And fear Allah. Allah knows all that you do” (Surah Al Maaidat 5:8). “Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due, and when you judge between people, judge with justice. Allah gives good advice. Allah is All hearing All seeing.” (Surat An Nisa 4:58). The Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) said: “People, beware of injustice, for injustice shall be darkness on the Day of Judgment.” And on another occasion He (S.A.W) said “Those among you who see a wrong being committed stop it with your hands. If you cannot then say it is wrong with your mouth. If you still cannot than know that it is wrong in your heart but know that this is the lowest level of faith.”



Guarantee of protection is revoked in certain scenarios. In the case Con has described where a Muslim Warlord decides that war is in his favor and does not make peace with those who wish for peace, he has gone against the commands of Allah and he will punishment for it sometimes it is in this world in the form of a powerful invader or a rebellion. Other scenarios include a nation that has become Proud and overconfident in its superiority, a nation that has begun indulging in immoral acts, greed, oppression of its people (Muslim or Non-Muslim), shedding of innocent blood (whether Muslim or Non-Muslim) etc. Another reason could be that sometimes Allah sends a test to see if the people will chose the easy way or the right way. In any scenario if an innocent is wronged he will be compensated in this world or the next and the oppressors will be punished either in this world or the next.

Theunkown

Con

I could write more but I need 10K charectars i am used to instead of 8K

The verse of Surat An-Nisa has been taken out of context. If you read the preceding verses you realize that this is directed at those people who in their hearts know that Islam is the true religion yet still refuse to follow it.

What ever the case is, Violence and terror is still violence and terror. Justified or not, it is still terror.

If an employee of a certain company knows that the orders have come from the CEO but refuses to carry them out then does not the CEO hold the right to punish that employee?
Well the CEO does not have the right to terrorize that employee with fire. Besides the Employee made a voluntary agreement to do his job and to follow the CEO.

However, I did not sign a voluntary agreement when I was born that I will follow the Quran and abstain from sex before marriage, worshipping other gods or lack of worship all together. I did not voluntarily agree to the punishment being hell. The connection between CEO-Employee is voluntary, however with God-Human it is forced.

The concept of Heaven and Hell is the concept of reward and punishment, It is in Human nature to avoid punishment and strive to achieve a reward that is the best form of motivation you can offer a Human Being.
Irrelevant, the result is terror. People are terrified to burn in hell. If hell is a concept of punishment and if it is threatened upon those who disbelieve (as stated in the above quote) and those who choose to leave Islam, it is de facto use of terror.

Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced[to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts[hearts] to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah and for them is a great punishment;(Surat An-Nahl 16:106) [1]

I am sorry, it is a joke to call a religion or ideology or whatever peaceful if you get a great punishment to question and disbelieve said religion/ideology/whatever.


Shirq vs Murder

During my Research about Islam, I have found that murder is NOT the worst thing in Islam, I have heard Muslim scholars including the famous/infamous Zakir Naik say the same. Murder is at number 2. Murder is punishable by death upon which the murderer is immediately sent to the hellfire. This is terror, Finite crimes on Earth do not deserve an infinite punishment in Hell. This should not be hard to grasp. While I do agree Murder is a terrible crime, threatening people with eternal suffering is terror, like it or not.

What's even worse is that Shirq is listed as a sin worse than murder. Shirq is the worshipping of a being other than Allah or associating an object with Allah. This means that the 800 million - 1 Billion Idol worshipping Hindus of India are all worse than murderers and should be punished with something worse than the punishment of a murderer. Really man?

How does Pro justify the religious hatred that is present and justify the punishment of Hindus with something worse than murder?

To add insult to injury, Allah says in the Quran that:

Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.(Surat An-Nisa 4:48) [1]
What this is saying is that Allah does not forgive those who associate objects with Allah, but forgives what is less that (crimes lesser than Shirq, *including murder*)

So, Hindus are doomed and will never be forgiven however Murderers may be forgiven.

My father and I are ex-Hindus, my mother isstill a Hindu. We all used to worship Idols (and my mom continues). We are effectively being threatened with hell with no chance of redemption (Terror) by the teachings of Islam in none other than the Quran itself. Eternal terror also applies to you, dear reader, if you are a practising or former Hindu.


[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."(Surat al Anfal 8:12)[1]

The Quran itself has conceded that God will cast terror into the hearts of those who desbelieve.

I will not deny the existence of verses that condemn disbelievers to Hellfire but why is topic for a debate itself and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand hence I will not go into it.
It is VERY relevant. Pro says that a religion of terror teaches to prefer violence/terrorism. Is not condeming Disbelievers and Idolators to hellfire violence? Is that not terrorism as it instills fear and terror?

For future references cite verses of Quran or Qoutes of the Prophet (S.A.W) that actually incite Muslims to commit terrorism.
The death sentence must be given to Murderers under Sharia Law. This means that worshipping Idols, which is worse than Murder, must therefore recieve an equal or larger punishment. Surely this will incite Muslims to commit acts of murder, unjustified violence and of course, terrorism.

One of the names of Allah is “Al Rahman” the Merciful and another is “Al Ghafoor” the most forgiving.
The above quotes show that Allah is not Merciful or the most forgiving (for about a Billion Hindus) and therefore the names given here are simply just names with little meaning. Its like how North korea is called Democratic People's Republic of Korea but is neither a Republic nor is it democratic. Pro himself mentions that Shirk/Idol worshipping is not forgiven. Pro's argument is therefore invalid.

The below quotes from Pro refer to the Muslim warlord arguments.
In that scenario the Muslim Warlord will be going against the command of Allah and hence doing an evil deed,
The command of Allah being refered to here is negotiating peace. This brings up a question. If Allah has the power to command Human beings to stop any and all conflicts, why in the world does not the conflict stop the second before they are started and why must so many innocents die during the war and suffer its after effects on society?
Remember that Allah is the inspiration, the role model of Muslims who hope to learn what they can from Allah's supposedly infinite wisdom. The impression being recieved here is that war, violence and terror are not something to be halted due to divine intervention. Which is why there were & are so many conflicts in the Muslim world.

If you read the verse closely it says accept peace and put your trust [to maintain peace] in Allah.

Palestinians, atleast the West Bank did just that. However, they did not recieve peace and are still oppressed. They did not recieve justice. Besides, if the Muslim Warlord does not accept peace, why is Allah tolerating the deaths of the soldiers who dare not question the warlord? Is this the impression Allah wants to give us? 'Peace? meh'

The reason for this is that Knowledge of what lies in a person’s heart is considered knowledge of the unseen and this is what Allah says about knowledge of the unseen...To claim to have a power that Allah has not given to any humans accept the chosen Prophets is like saying that the person is better than the Prophets hence wrong.
This kind of Authoritative claims is what the Islamic community uses to prevent questioning. Rather, they would prefer to Praise Allah when Palestine finally recieves peace and Justice (which they *eventually* will of course) but will not see that Allah has allowed thousands, perhaps millions, of innocents to be killed.

How is anyone supposed to trust Allah with the task of propagating and preaching peace if he has the power to stop terror but does not?


Sources:
[1]http://quran.com...;(copy paste the exact verse numbers into search box, for eg. 8:12 this minor inconveniance is to ease the burden of citing of several passages)
[2]http://www.quran.mu...;[This site lists sins in order of Worst to Least, all other sites i have seen list them in the same order]

Debate Round No. 3
AKhattak

Pro

After thinking about it I made a mistake entering a debate into unrelated topic. We can go debating endlessly about whether Allah is kind or cruel and still not reach a satisfying agreement. I am not here to convert you to Islam and you are not here to convince me to renounce Islam. I cannot presume to know the will of Allah. Whether Allah decides to forgive the 1 billion Hindus or punish them is between them and Allah. it is not my concern. I am not responsible for their fate nor are they responsible for mine in matters of faith.

Shirq vs Murder


I will open my second statement with this. I think Con has missed my definitions. I clearly stated “teaches to prefer/promote’ hence it is implied that it tells its followers to prefer/promote a path of peace or a path of violence and terrorism. This debate is about the teachings of Islam whether they teach a Muslim to take the path of peace or commit acts of terrorism. emphasis on "teach" then on "teach a Muslim to take the path of peace or commit acts of terrorism" since Muslims are currently living in this world and the day of judgment has not yet arrived debate on that is useless. Muslims cannot yet take a path of peace or terrorism in the afterlife since it has not yet arrived
I will now give counter argument on points relevant to this debate.

The Quran itself has conceded that God will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. The verse you have quoted mentions something that has already happened in the battle of Badr. When one sends soldiers into battle one tends to give them words of encouragement to boost morale and tell them that it is okay to kill the enemy if your life is in danger but that does not give Muslims the right to terrorise Non-Muslims everywhere. As evidenced by the verse I mentioned before for those who seek peace Muslims must give them peace. On that point in the aftermath of the battle those who had surrendered, not one prisoner had been harmed not executed nor beaten.

The death sentence must be given to Murderers under Sharia Law. This means that worshipping Idols, which is worse than Murder, must therefore receive an equal or larger punishment. Surely this will incite Muslims to commit acts of murder, unjustified violence and of course, terrorism.
The right to judge a person based on the person's violation of Human rights is given to those whose rights have been violated, in the case of murder the family of the deceased, but the right to judge people based on their violation of the rights of Allah is not given to Muslims it is reserved exclusively for Allah. If a Muslim were to use the logic you mentioned it will be counted as a violation of human rights and treated as such. A Muslim is not allowed to harm another human based on what their beliefs may be.

Allah will not interfere with a human's free will directly. This is the pact that Allah has made with shaitan and Allah does not break a pact. The role model for Muslims is not Allah for a human can never hope to be equal to the Creator of everything, the role model for Muslims is the Life of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W).

Theunkown

Con

Whether Allah decides to forgive the 1 billion Hindus or punish them is between them and Allah. it is not my concern. I am not responsible for their fate nor are they responsible for mine in matters of faith.

We know for fact taht Allah will punish the 1 billion Hindus without question, its right there in the Quranic verses I quoted. The promotion of Hindus as being worse than murderers and committing crimes that even the most forgiving being, Allah, cannot forgive will prompt hatred against Hindus. This is clearly seen in the long history of conflict between Hindus and Muslims in India, which continues to this day. Is this peaceful I ask?[1]


The Quran itself has conceded that God will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. The verse you have quoted mentions something that has already happened in the battle of Badr. When one sends soldiers into battle one tends to give them words of encouragement to boost morale and tell them that it is okay to kill the enemy if your life is in danger but that does not give Muslims the right to terrorise Non-Muslims everywhere

Yes, you give soldiers encouragement to boost morale and kill when life is in danger but seriously, are all disbelievers threatening the lives of all Muslims? Why does all mighty God use such absolute words that are ripe for interpretation?


The right to judge a person based on the person's violation of Human rights is given to those whose rights have been violated, in the case of murder the family of the deceased, but the right to judge people based on their violation of the rights of Allah is not given to Muslims it is reserved exclusively for Allah.

That is absolute Garbage. A person who tortures a person is given the exact same punishement (or rather should be) reguardless of what the victim says. This is why countries have a judicical system where punishments are based on crime and objective law and not the charges put forth by the victim.


but the right to judge people based on their violation of the rights of Allah is not given to Muslims it is reserved exclusively for Allah.
Then please explain why there are so many Muslims who are devout to the Islamic faith are doing terrible things in the name of Allah? We know for fact that Allah wants Shirq-ers (like Hindus) to be punished gravely and eternally because it is written in the Quran. Then is it not a Muslim who kills Hindus being the greatest servant of Allah. I mean there is no judgement needed for Hindus.

Allah is all certain and has proclaimed in the Quran that they are screwed with no chance of being forgiven, so there is no judge in the matter, it is set in stone.


The role model for Muslims is not Allah for a human can never hope to be equal to the Creator of everything, the role model for Muslims is the Life of the Prophet Muhammad

The prophet who married a six year old girl and had sex when she was nine? The man who waged wars to spread the religion across Arabia?

O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.(Surat At-Tawbah 9:73)

This same man who desecrated the temples of Old Arab gods (the Kabbah for example) and disrespected their religion, yet puts to death those that convert from Islam and preaches against Islam? This is the role model for muslims, ladies and gentlemen.

This debate is about the teachings of Islam whether they teach a Muslim to take the path of peace or commit acts of terrorism. emphasis on "teach" then on "teach a Muslim to take the path of peace or commit acts of terrorism" since Muslims are currently living in this world and the day of judgment has not yet arrived debate on that is useless.

Debate on that on whether teaching the path of peace vs terrorism is useless? Then why on Earth did you start this debate?
Perhaps Pro realized that Islam is dominated by teachings of hatred, 'us' vs 'them', segregation of Muslims vs Non Muslims, terror of Allah and he is trying to say that the debate is useless as a hope for a tied debate.

By the way, the Quran DOES encourage terrorism against Non Muslims to be instigated by Muslims.

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Surat At Tawbah 9:5) [2]


What's worse is that things like this happens in the modern day as well. From India, to Western Europe, people are being killed in the name of Islam. Whether it is riots against Hindus for worshipping their idols or it is Pakistani schoolkids beign killed for getting an education or it is French cartoonists who break the barrier of political correctness.

Real people have been killed by Muslims just for having freedom of religion, right to education, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What's more? The majority of the Muslim world do NOT condemn these actions (with the odd exception of the Pakistani kids, perhaps because they are Muslim majority?). This is especially true in the case of the cartoonists. Instead the majority of Muslims all over the world agreed that the cartoonists brought the killlings upon themselves if not explicitly state that they deserved it (I would know firsthand, I live in the United Arab Emirates, a muslim country). In essence they are condoning terrorism.

People are being killed in Saudi Arabia, Iran and a plethora of countries for leaving the Islamic faith.[4]

Now many Muslims (maybe even Pro) will probably say 'Oh these are not *true muslims*' as I have heard a million times. This is nothing more than a No-true scotsman fallacy. The terrorist groups are following the verses of the Quran mentioned above and are therefore Muslims.

Besides a majority of Muslims in many countries support the death penalty for leaving Islam.[3]


I will end with this final thought:

If Islam was a religion of peace, then Muslim extremists would be extremely peaceful.



Sources:
[1]http://www.massviolence.org...;
[2]http://quran.com...
[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[4]http://commons.wikimedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AKhattak 1 year ago
AKhattak
I am against killing anyone for their beliefs. Allah has not given me the right to judge them.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
One final question, do you support the death penalty for apostasy and/or shirq?
Posted by AKhattak 1 year ago
AKhattak
I never said current internationally established Human Rights were based on Islam. Affairs of the world are for us to decide, the hereafter is left to Allah. i stand by my earlier post " this world that we current live in and the rights of the humans that are still alive". If any Muslim kills a person committing shirq it is still considered murder and judged as such. The same for apostasy unless the person is provided adequate time and guidance, life is not to be taken until all other options are exhausted and even then the final decision lies with the state not indivituals.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
I humbly ask that you realize that human rights of today are based on secular reasoning and not religion

A lot of secular human rights even CONTRADICT Islamic human rights.

Freedom of speech and expression is a secular human rights, and contradicts Islam because the depiction of humans is not allowed, most notably the depiction of the last and final Prophet Mohammed.

Freedom of religion and freedom of choice are also secular but they contradict Islam due to appostasy being punishable by death and shirq ( object worshipping including idols) punishable by something worse than murder.
Posted by AKhattak 1 year ago
AKhattak
So long as it concerns this world that we current live in and the rights of the humans that are still alive yes I still believe it teaches peace more that terror.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
When I said war I meant to say terror sorry
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Now that voting period is over, tell me honestly if you, alkhattack, still think Islam preaches peace more than war, that does not necessarily mean Islam is incorrect however.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
I didn't even have 1 charectar space remaining in the debate. Exactly 8,000
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
I mainly said it for the readers, most of whom do NOT own a Quran at home.
Posted by AKhattak 1 year ago
AKhattak
I actually have 2 copies of the Quran at home I do not need to search for it ion the internet I can look it up at home.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
AKhattakTheunkownTied
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: I'm only awarding arguments here since I don't have the time to check other point aspects such as sources, S&G and conduct. Pro provided the definition for "religion of peace" as: "a religion that prefers/promotes peaceful resolution of conflicts" and declared that Con's position was to defend that Islam was a "religion of terror", that "promotes terrorism." The definition was so non-specific that, if Con even managed to demonstrate that Islam promotes terrorism while SIMULTANEOUSLY promoting peace, Con fulfills their share of the onus.Con has successfully shown that Qur'an is full of violence, hatred and segregation of societies. Ultimately, Con managed to successfully demonstrate that Islam, at least somehow, promotes 'terror' more than 'peace'. Ultimately, Con managed to fulfill their onus probandi greater than Pro, thus arguments go to Con. Con's analogy of a Hindu being considered worse than a murderer struck its mark, thus arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
AKhattakTheunkownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was basically trying to pick verses from the Qur'an which supposedly teach Peace, yet Con has successfully shown that Qur'an is full of violence, hatred and segregation of societies. Pro tried stating the following to rebut Con's case: 1. The quotes were taken out of context 2. The debate is not about such quotes. However, I was not really convinced by that, as I didn't feel that in the case of (1) Pro showed a reasonable context in which such quotes could be non-violent. He was talking about them being justified, but Con has successfully shown that they were still violent in nature. Also in the (2) case I was also not particularly convinced about Pro's reasons to dismiss some of those quotes as unsuitable for the debate. Con has shown that Pro's usage of his own definitions to limit the course of debate is not reasonable. Overall, I think that Pro has not really met his BOP to show that Islam is peaceful, and Con has successfully shown convincing evidence to the contrar