The Instigator
Zairik
Pro (for)
The Contender
rolaaus
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
rolaaus has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 290 times Debate No: 93745
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Zairik

Pro

You start.
rolaaus

Con

In my opinion, you should have written your opening statement with your challenge. The system seems to be set up that way. But, I can go with the flow and put up a simple statement for my opening and then strengthen it woth subsequent rounds with suppirtive facts, etc.

Why is Islam not a peaceful religion?

For starters, ISIS, al-queda, Taliban, boko haram, MUSLIM brotherhood etc.

All of these organizations recruit MUSLIMS from Muslim mosques, and madrasas (schools - for any non Muslim voter out there). These organizations teach from the Muslim canonized Scripture, and even "moderate" Muslims and experts in Islam (either those who convert out of Islam or just familiar with Islam in geberal like I am) freely admit that "extremist" are taking their Scripture (the Koran) "too literal", meaning thw violent acts of (so-called) "extremsists" re being done because they are doing exactly what their book says to do, not what some other scholar "thinks" that their al-ilah "meant" when he says what he says in the Koran. In other words, they are bwing dutiful obedient Muslims following what their Scripture tells them to do.

Not only do we have all of these organizations that are being obedient violent Muslims, but Sunnis and Shi'ites are ina life and death struggle with each other. This isn't just a one sided battle where the "violent" side is trying to eliminate the other side, they are both trying to wipe the other side out of existence.

Now, I know what my opponent will likely say (besides explaining away the violent passages of the Koran), that one must look at the religion itself and not it's followers, but as I just stated, these violent acts are being done by people who are following their book "too literalky", and the moderates are the ones saying this.

So, the question is begged - does the Koran REALLY meab what it "literally" says, OR did al-ilah not know what his religion would turn in to when he gaves these violent passages in his book?

This concept of al-ilah not really knowing the future is also reflected in other silly aspects of the basic tenants of Islam. For example, whe al-ilah supposedly took Jesus and "lifted him up" off the face of the earth (after making the Jews crucify the wrong man), why didn't al-ilah figure out ahead of time that people who were rightfully following Jesus would supposedly be confused about the crucifixion and that Jesus's "gospel" would supposedly be corrupted during the same generation of those "Companions" that followed Jesus around listening directly in person, to His teachings for three years.

For anyone to say that Islam is peaceful certainly does not know what they are talking about, and that extends to those "moderates" who choose to follow Islam, they obviously don't know Islam's history. And, if we don't want to judge the religion by the actions of it's current followers, certainly we can judge the religion by examining the history of the religion, in its entirety.
Debate Round No. 1
Zairik

Pro

Even a Muslim who has less knowledge of Islam will tell that extremism is not Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately. . .Always adopt a middle, moderate, regular course, whereby you will reach your target (of paradise)." - Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Hadith 470

When it is said that we should be moderate, it is very important to identify the end points/extremes. To be a moderate Muslim, does it mean that you stay the middle course between Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) and Abu Jahl? Is the moderation supposed to be between these two end points? No. Moderation is never between Islam and Kufr, between belief and disbelief! The moderation of a Muslim is to be between Abu Bakr and Umar (radi Allahu anhuma)

Speaking of Interpretation

No, you are not supposed to follow the literal meaning. This is mentioned in the Quran itself.

"We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people
may understand / use reason" (12:2):

It's not moderate who are saying not to follow Islam "too literally" it's the Quran. Those who do follow it "too literally" are the one's who are practicing Islam the wrong way.

And no, we dont follow just by thinking or guessing. The interpretation is not based on "I guess" and "Maybe".
Quran was sent in Arabic, Prophet Muhammad's language so that he can explain it to his companions easily. And that's the
true interpretation.

During that time of Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) when the hadeeth were being compiled and also the time when Sharia law was forming (Sharia law was way different back then), the hadeeth were collected and before the were confirmed to be authentic they were triple - checked by the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) companions and Umar (radi Allahu anhuma was also one by the way. So now, there is a definite interpretation but over time more interpretations came about and that's not the mistake of Islam and the violent verses or passages have an interpretation and context.

Jesus was sent to down to spread the word of Allah (SWT) and he did. Bible was corrupted over time and that's not Allah's mistake. The people who live with Jesus or at least during his time and followed his words are the true people of the book.

The reason why Bible has different versions or as we believe that Christians are misguided is not because Allah (SWT) lifted Jesus up or "the crucifixion gone wrong". It's you who created different versions not Allah (SWT). It was St. Paul who messed up with what Jesus told . He told people to break the law and Jesus told that the ones who break the law and tell people to break the law are lowest of the Kingdom. Paul claimed he saw Jesus but Barnabas was a disciple, When Paul was teaching "whatever he was" Barnabas refuted.

So if you are gonna say that people were confused because Allah (SWT) lifted him then you are simply wrong.
rolaaus

Con

I recently saw an internet meme that gives the best answer to your claim that even less knowledgeable Muslims will tell that so-called "extremists" are not true Muslims. I will do my best to restate it here, but it won't be 100% what I saw...
Extremists say moderates aren't real Muslims
Moderates say extremists aren't real Muslims
Sunnis say shi'ites aren't real Muslims
Shi'ites say Sunnis aren't real Muslims
Apparently nobody is a real Muslim,
But say one negative thing against Islam
And suddenly there are 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world.

Actualky, this little saying is a perfect supportive evidence that shows exactly what I was going to say to answer the opponents notion that onebneeds to look at the Sunnah of Muhammad in order to interpret the true meaning of the Koran.

For one thing, there are some "true" Muslims that believe that all hadith are valid, while other "true" Muslims believe some hadith were made up in order for people in the past (after Muhammad died, but around that same time) to support their own personal view of wuat Islam is. Which is why, according to these "true" Muslims you find conflicting reports, like the supposed command that children and non-combat women (those women who refrain from actively participating in the fighting) are not to be killed, and yet the hadith proclaim that Muhammad ordered the killing of every member of the last Jewosh tribe in Yathrib, including the children who he said were "of them (their parents)" eaning they deserved the same death punishment as their parents. Us "true" non-Muslims know that these conflicting hadith reports are because we know that Muhammad made things up as he went along, like declaring that believers are to only marry up to 4 women, but he was given special permission to "marry" homever he wanted - including sex slaves, err, I mean "war brides".

The fact remains that no matter which brand of "real" Muslim you are in relation to the Hadith, no Muslim will say that the hadith are divine revelation! Which means, according to my opponent, the divine relies on the non divine in order to fully comprehend it. Put another way, the uncorruptible must have the corruptible, for full comprehension of it's knowledge!

Again, this is not true for the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures. The truth of the matter is that Yahweh God revealed to Isaiah, in chapter 59 of the book of Isaiah, that His (God's) Holy Words shal not depart from the mouth of His people (the Jews) "from this day (the day this Holy Word was given to Isaiah) FOREVERMORE", in fact it clearly says "from the mouths of this generation, and it's children and it's children's children, FOREVERMORE". Meaning, there will never be a 600 year gap between what Jesus revealed to what Muhammad supposedly revealed, let along what Jesus revealed to what the prior prophets revealed, a gap where the Holy Word of God will be lost or corrupted, changed, modified, or anything! Therefore, my opponents notion that God has somehow "preserved" His revelations in the original form, but those are lost and what we have has been corrupted, violates what Yahweh God promised His people. Therefore, my opponent follows an al-ilah that either CAN NOT or WILL NOT keep the promises that Yahweh gives to His people. Of course, we also know from the Jewish Holy Scripture that Yahweh declares His promises are true, so if He says He will do something we must accept that He will do it.

Also, Jesus testifies to the truth of the previous Holy Scriptures, and the truth of God keeping His promise to Isaiah, when He said "I have not come to destroy the Law, but fulfill it. Surely, I say unto you, not on jot or tittle shall pass away from the law, until all is fulfilled".

Again, I reiterate my previous claim that Christianity is the only subsequent religion to the Jews that attests to the validity of the Jewish texts. Unlike Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, and Islam, which all claim the previous Holy Scriptures were either corrupted, deficient, or indlferior in some other way.

The fact is that even the Koran tells Christians and Jews (of Muhammads timw) to follow "what is in their hands". If Jesus' Gospel (injel) and the Jewish Torah were in fact corrupted, why would al-ilah say to do this? It is because the Koran does not support the Muslim belief that the previous Holy Scriptures were corrupted. In fact, there is a hadith where Muhammad kisses the Toeah and declares that he "attests to the truthfulness of (it)".

In fact, my opponents claim that the supposed corruption of the previous Holy Scripture is not al-ilahs fault, is not supported by the Koran either, for it says that "nobody can change Gods words". Therefore, we are once again forced to ask, was al-ilah UNABLE or UNWILLING to fulfill Yahwehs promise to Isaiah?

I feel the need at this point to reiterate a statement I made before, concerning the fact that Yahweh God gives His followers clear and distinct directions, not only in the form of their ceremonies, but also in the exact design of His house of worship. These clear and distinct instructions were given in His divine revelation, not in sone supllimebtal adendum, or hadith type compilation. Yahweh God directly and divinely inspired, reveals His wishes and instructions about worship. Again, not so with al-ilah and the Koran. For a Muslim must look to the non divine, or corruptible, in order to fully understand the supposed uncorruptible.

Speaking of house of worship, I neglected to mention that with the Lord God Yahweh, He revealed His house of worships name to be Tabernalce, and the meaning of this word is "dwelling place", which means that He actually dwells within the midst of His people! The Muslim performs their worship at "the cube" (Kabbah). Also, the Christian now believes that God indwells His believers. This is actually the ministry of the Holy Spirit (which shows that since dwelling in each and every believer is a function of omnipresence, that the Holy Spirit is NOT angel Gabriel, this is also supported by other Old Testament passages that reference the Holy Spirit).
Debate Round No. 2
Zairik

Pro

About Sunnis and Shi'ites, you are right but both the side agree on a lot of things and one of them is about extremism. When it comes to extremism both Shi'ites and Sunnis agree that it's wrong. I am gonna leave it this matter with that comment because the debate is not about how divided Islam but whether Islam is a religion of peace or not.

Yes, some believe that Hadith are made up while some or not and there's way to find out which one is made up and which one is not. A made up hadith will contradict with at least one of the verified hadith and also it's trails wont go back to to 1400 years. So we can figure out which Hadith is made up and which one is not.

The Jews killed part? There were many battles with the Jews. I guess you are talking about the killing of 800/900 Jews.

Then let me tell you that there was no such battle! There is a mention of a few people killed and few taken as captives in surah 33 which is related to Banu Quraiza but there was no killing of 900 Jews. Heck there are different versions too. Some place it's written that they were buried in the marketplace and in other version they were buried somewhere else.'The story was later made up and it's not even mentioned in the Quran.

Speaking of killing what about what about this ----->>

40 Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don"t let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.

Elijah slaughtered 450 prophets and this is not a lie because it's written in the Bible so you have to deal with this but us Muslims don't have to deal with the killing of 900 Jews because it's not there in the Quran and also that
story is proved to made up.

No Muhammad (PBUH) didn't make things on his way. There is a perfect explanation for everything he told and what he did.

Why are men allowed to keep 4 wives?

- The reason it's allowed is because Arabs use to have 12 - 30 wives which is too much. Some of them were treated right while some were not so Islam solved this problem. The number was limited to 4 first of all then you cant marry a second without the permission of the first wife so it's more likely that the man is not gonna get a second wive because obviously in most cases the first wive will not allow. Lets just say that your first allowed you to get a second wive but then you have to treat them equally. If you buy something for the first wive than you have to buy it for the second one and also you should love them equally. Most of the men couldn't afford to fulfill the wishes of two wifes and please don't even talk about four! but some did marry four wives. However it may be Islam solve the problem of polygamy till an extent.

Surah Nisa [4:3]
Then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

Surah Nisa [4:129]
And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) didn't marry whoever he wanted to. He didn't want to marry Aisha (R.A) but he did because it was Allah's (SWT) order and his got the proposel from Khadija(R.A), his first wive. He didn't just whomever he wanted to.

Sex slaves?

Slavery is waayyyyyyyyyyyy different in Islam. I agree that sex slave are allowed in Islam. But like I told slavery is way different in Islam. Some people during the Islamic age were happy to be slaves of Muslims. Why?? because they were treated normally, not like slave. Slaves were not treated the way Americans treated them neither they were treated the way Europeans treated them.

-It is related by Abu Hurairah (R.A.) that Rasulullah (PBUH) said,

"Food and dress are the right of the slave and he should not be assigned to task which may be beyond his capacity."
-These points constitute the fundamental rights of slaves and servants " that one should fulfill their basic need for food and clothing in kindness and should be merciful in assigning any work to them.

In another Hadith, the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said,

"They are your brothers (the slaves and servants). Allah has placed them under your authority. So he who has a brother under him should feed him and clothe him as he himself does, and should not take from him any work that is beyond his power. If he does tell him to do such work then he should also join in it " (and help him)."
-Here the slaves and servants have been declared to be the brothers of their masters, and therefore deserve treatment like brothers " are not both of them, servant and master, the children of Adam, after all!

Abu Hurairah (R.A.) relates that he heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) say

"Whoever beats the slave or Servant unjustly, revenge will be taken from him on the Day of Judgment."
-Abu Mas"ood (R.A.) narrates that "Once I was beating my slave when I heard a voice behind -(saying)" Oh Abu Mas"ood! Remember that Allah has a greater power and authority over you than you have over the poor slave."
-I turned around and saw that it was the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) whereupon I said "Oh Prophet of Allah " he is now free for the sake of Allah (I have set him free)." The Prophet (PBUH) observed that "Be informed that had you not done so (i.e. set him free) you would be consumed in the fire of Hell!"
You are not even allowed to beat them or mistreat them. So what's wrong?

The master can have sexual relations with his female slave without a marriage contract, just as it allowed a man to have sexual relations with a free woman only with a marriage contract, but in neither case was the man allowed to rape the woman. A master was no more allowed by the law to rape his slave than a husband his wife. In the context of slavery, the Prophet"s (s) very last words was "al-Salat wa-mulk al-yamin" which means "Beware of neglecting prayer and beware how you treat your slaves." The Prophet ( sallAllahu `aleihi wa sallam ) treated even a slap in the face of a female slave as an offense of which the required expiation was to free her on the spot. (Surat al-Israa,17:70)

What you told relying on non-divine to understand the divine.

-Yes, some believe that Hadith are made up while some or not and there's way to find out which one is made up and which one is not. A made up hadith will contradict with at least one of the verified hadith and also it's trails wont go back to to 1400 years. So we can figure out which Hadith is made up and which one is not.

I am gonna leave with that statement. There is nothing wrong to rely on non-divine to understand the divine if the non-divine is being conserved. Hadiths are non-divine because they are not from God but Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and he knew the most about what Allah (SWT) wanted so in some way we are following the divine by following the non-divine.

And later you started speaking of Yahweh and all that but that's not what the debate is about. We are going out of topic.
We can have a another debate on that but for now lets focus on the current debate and what it's about.

And also I am out of word limit here. 540 characters are left which not enough to argue the rest of the things/
rolaaus

Con

I think my opponent missed my point, before, even though I made a mistake it was a mistake about something else.

I mentioned the fact that Summis and Shi'ites disagree, and my opponent seems to think that this means they disagree with the extremists, owever, the point I was making should have been clear to any Muim not born in the Western world (USA or Europe) and that is that Sunni's and Shi'ites argue amongst each other. Argue is actually a mild term, they fight so badly they kill each other.

Which begs the question since they disagree so badly resulting in death, and since the Arab lands are pretty scarce of non believers,.and those non believers that are still around in Arab lands (like Egypt or even Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.) are persecuted and fear for their lives.

Is Islam peaceful... hell no, but I guess the question should be SHOULD Islam be peaceful, f followed properly. Well, the vast majority of verses in the Koran say otherwise, starting with surah 9:111 hich talks about a "bargain" hat al-ilah makes, a believers death AND KILLING OTHERS is exchanged for paradise! This passage even goes so far to say that this very same "bargain" is in the Torah and the Gospel, which just goes to show that Muhammad didn't know what the previous Holy Scriptures taught!

Then there is the oft quoted "Kill them (unbelievers) whereever you find them, using every strategy of way (including deceipt, like disinformation about being 'peaceful')

One thing that my opponent has said about using reason to interpret the Koran is partially true. The factis that Muslims know about the concept of abrogation, which they also know that the earlier peaceful passages (to you, your religion and to me mine, nd others) are replaced by the later passages after Muhammad reached Yathrib and concolidated his power base. His first attack was against a trade caravan that left Mecca and wasn't even going to Medina. This wasn't a "supply train" for his enemies armies, ike I had one Islamopologist (one who defends Islam) suggest. And the tyranny just progressed from their.
Debate Round No. 3
Zairik

Pro

It's very unfortunate that Sunnis and Sh'ites couldn't resolve their issues/problems even though it's been a long time. You see religion is one of the things that go deep with people and a theist would understand that. The sunni and shi'ite issue has to do with tolerance levels not Islam. I have friends who are shi'ite and we dont even fight with each other. I live in a sunni community and shi'ites live among us. There is sunni and shi'ite violence but the problem is only the violence is highlighted not the unity that's the reason you feel like we always fight with each other.

And what about Catholics and protestants. How many people lost lives because this conflict? It took some time for the violence to end (almost 1500 yrs, I guess.) Islam is 1400 years old. I am not saying that it's gonna take 100 - 200 yrs for us to solve the problem.

Yes, I know non - believers risk their live is Arab lands but what about country like Qatar, Oman , Kuwait , UAE,Malaysia , Turkey (It's a secular but it's with a muslim majority)? Do non Muslims fear their lives in these counties to?

If you wanna know how a Muslim country should treat people then read about the time of Umar (RA), Abu Bakr (RA) OR Uthman (RA).

The following link will give a little idea of their time (The true Islamic rule):

Abu Bakr (RA) --> https://www.youtube.com...

Umar (RA) ----> https://www.youtube.com...

Uthman (RA) ---> https://www.youtube.com...

They vast majority of verse in the Quran that say otherwise. You should have mentioned which exactly because each have their own and unique explanation.

Kill them (unbelievers) whereever you find them, using every strategy of way (including deceipt, like disinformation about being 'peaceful')??

https://www.youtube.com... -----> Watch this. The perfect explanation. The explanation behind the vers 9:111 is also close to that. You are taking the verse in the wrong way.

Watch this too ---> https://www.youtube.com...

As Quran 9:107 and 9:108 are mentioned prior to Quran 9:111, we have to read Quran 9:107 and 9:108 in order to jump into the conclusion what Quran 9:111 means. We have to read the previous verses.

Quran 9:107, "And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His messenger".

Quran 9:108, "...q mosque...In it are men who love to be purified, and Allah loveth those who make them pure".

As the phrase, those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infideility, is mentioned in Quran 9:107, it certainly refers to non-Muslims that try to stir up problem in the mosque. As non-Muslims try to stir up problem in the mosque, they Quran 9:107, "warred against Allah and His messenger". As they are those that start stirring up trouble in the mosque, we will undoubtedly fight for Allah.

Quran 9:29 and 9:111 to stir up trouble in the society since the Holy Quran mentions that we only fight when pagans starts to attack the mosque. All Muslim extremists sin against Allah since pagans, most of the time, did not start to attack Mosque and yet they start their wars against them first.

The caravan attack?? https://www.youtube.com...

But later peace was made with other tribes and after some time with the Quraysh too.

Like Banu Damrah. Banu Damrah pledged to not attack Muslims or side with the Quraysh; and Muhammad pledged to not attack the caravans of Banu Damrah or seize their goods.

Read about the treaty of Hudaibiyah in detail to know about what happened with the Quraysh later on.

- In 628, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was signed between Muhammad, representing the state of Madina and the Quraysh tribe of Makkah. It was signed to help decrease tension between the two cities, affirming a 10 year peace and also authorizing Muhammad and his followers to come to Makkah for pilgrimage after Muhammad has received a revelation from Allah that Muslims should go for pilgrimage. They were not going to Makkah because of the enmity with the Quraysh. So in the year 628, the Prophet and a group of 1400 followers marched towards Makkah peacefully dressed as pilgrims with animal sacrifices, in a state of ihram which is a premeditated spiritual and physical state which prohibits fighting. During their journey they met emissaries from and going to Makkah and negotiated with them telling that they have come in peace. During this time rumors spread that Usman bin al-Affan had been killed by the Quraysh upon which the Prophet called the pilgrims to make a pledge that they will not flee and will stick to whatever decision he takes even if it results in war. This pledge is known as "The Pledge of Acceptance" or "The Pledge under the Tree". News of Usman"s safety arrived eventually which allowed the negotiations to continue.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by rolaaus 4 months ago
rolaaus
I just realized that I made a slight blunder. I started a debate about whether or not Islam worships the same deity as the Jews and Christians, as they claim to, and I believe it was left open (no one accepting the challenge) until after I started this one. My blunder was that in my last round (so far) I thought I was posting to that debate (in fact, when I posted my last round, I thought that my prior round was deleted, somehow - i figured out why that was -:) Essentialky, I confused the two debates.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
religion is war
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
Yep. That is why this religion makes people kill other people who do not think this religion is anything for them..
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.