The Instigator
1Devilsadvocate
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 28200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

1Devilsadvocate

Con

Thank you Fatihah for agreeing to debate this most important matter.
This is a continuation of a debate from the forums:

I will distinguish Fatihah's words from mine by putting them in italics.

My main argument is from verse 5, the 1st 4 are to provide context:

1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.

2. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad ) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.

4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Fatihah's response: "...The NON-MUSLIMS attacked first..."


Verse 3 : On the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah fight none believers.
Verse 4: With the exception of "those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term."
verse 5 : Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the rest of Mushrikun "wherever you find them", and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. This is refering to those that were excluded in Verse 4.
So it's saying in the sacred month kill only some, after the sacred month kill the rest.


Fatihah's Response: "Yet the very verse you quoted states "With the exception of "those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term."
Thus the verses means to fight in defense of those who fight you."


The verse (4) that states, "With the exception of ", is a clause on the 1st fight (Verse 3). After verse (4) it says to fight again at a latter date, killing those excluded in verse (4).


The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period. & the earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months.

There are many other verses but to keep this as brief as possible, I'll just present this for now.
Fatihah

Pro

As salaamu alaikum

To my respected opponent and audience. As indicated by my opponent's post above, Islam is indeed a religion of peace. My opponent has already copied and pasted my actual rebuttal to his claim that the Qur'an verses mentioned show that islam is not a religion of peace, so there would be no need for me to repeat my claim until my opponent provides a rebuttal.

I would also like to add, that the teachings of islam are derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah (Sahih Bukhari and Muslim). Therefore, it is the responsibility of my opponent to show islam as not a religion of peace from these sources.

So to reiterate, the Qur'an says in verse 9:4,

"Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you.So fulfill to these the treaty you have made with them til their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous."

Verse 13 of the same chapter states:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers"

Verse 8:61 also states:

"And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards peace, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He who is all-hearing and all-knowing".

Above we see that muslims are not to fight those who incline to peace and to obey any peace treaty by not fighting. Yet we also see that the non-muslims attacked first in 9:13. Thus verse 9:5 refers to self-defense fighting by muslims who were attacked first.

Thus the evidence is clear from the very text and context of the verses that the order to fight is on the basis of self-defense, and not a command for muslims to attack first and against people who do not attack them and are peaceful.
Debate Round No. 1
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Pro repeats the argument from verse 4 which excludes those with whom they had a treaty.

As I already pointed out, that verse is clearly going on the earlier battle of verse 3. After the clause of verse 4.
A second battle is mentioned "Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush."

They were already told to kill "those who have failed you...". If so those referred to in verse 5, are the rest, those who have not attacked. Furthermore if it was in self defence, they wouldn't put it off until "the Sacred Months have passed".

My opponent mentions verse 13, which reads "Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths..."

"we see that the non-Muslims attacked first in 9:13"

Even if some did doesn't mean that they all did.
It is clear that verse 5 is going on all pagans that don't convert.
Verse 13 is a speech about doing the 1st battle.

Finally my opponent quotes: "And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards peace, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He who is all-hearing and all-knowing." 8:61.

That verse isn't even in the same chapter, it is not refering to the battle of 9:5. If it does relate to chapter 9 it's going on verse 3, the 1st battle, for I showed the 2nd battle, verse 5, was not restricted to self defence.

Here are more verses of violence in the quaran from: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
(They list many more, I selected & added comments.)

Koran (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." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Futhermore, If all the battles are defensive why do we find that they constantly have to be convinced to fight, if it's a matter of self defence, they have no choice.

Koran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Koran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers...

Koran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah""
"Cause of Allah". That doesn't sound like self defence to survive.

Koran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Koran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Koran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Koran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Koran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Koran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Koran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Koran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Koran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Again if all the battles are defensive why do we find that they constantly have to be convinced to fight, if it's a matter of self defence, they have no choice.

Koran (9:29) - "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."

Koran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Koran (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."

Koran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Koran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Fatihah

Pro

After demonstrating that the verses refer to self-defense from the very text and context of the verses, my opponent still insists that the verses do not refer to self-defense. I quoted and showed from the Qur'an itself that it was the non-muslims who attacked first, as shown in the following verse of the same chapter:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers"


Thus the evidence is clear that the verses refer to self-defense, for not only does the verse say that it was the non-muslims who attacked first, but not one verse in the Qur'an says for muslims to ever attack 'FIRST". Thus is it crystal clear that the verses refer to self-defense.

In response to this fact, my opponent actually acknowledges the verse, but states the following:

"Even if some did doesn't mean that they all did.
It is clear that verse 5 is going on all pagans that don't convert.
Verse 13 is a speech about doing the 1st battle."


So according to my opponent, the verse that clearly says that the non-muslims attacked first does not refer to verse 9:5, therefore when it says to fight, it means for the muslims to fight and attack first. Then if such is the case, then when we read verse 9:5, it should clearly state that muslims should attack first. We should see the word "First" in the verse, or at least a word synonymous to it. So let's quote the verse and see.

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Are the words "ATTACK FIRST' mentioned in the verse? NO. No where in the entire verse does it say for muslims to attack first. No where in the entire verse does it say to attack to make someone convert. No where. Thus the argument of my opponent that the verse means this fails. Words cannot mean something if the words are not there.


What is clear from the verse is that it does say to fight and attack, but no where in the verse does it give the reason for it. As clearly shown, the reason why is completely ambiguous in the verse. This means that to get a clear understanding, you must refer to the context of the verse. Can my opponent show any verse, in the entire Qur'an, that says for muslims to attack "First". No. Can I refer to a verse that says that Non-muslims attacked first? YES. And once again, it reads:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers"


Dear audience, the evidence is clear. Verse 9: 5 refers to self-defense, as proven by the fact that despite the verse stating to fight, it does not state for muslims to attack first and verse 9:13 of the same chapter clearly states that it was the non-muslims who attacked first.


But my opponent does not finish there. He also states:

"As I already pointed out, that verse is clearly going on the earlier battle of verse 3. After the clause of verse 4.
A second battle is mentioned "Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush."


He continues and says:

"They were already told to kill "those who have failed you...". If so those referred to in verse 5, are the rest, those who have not attacked. Furthermore if it was in self defence, they wouldn't put it off until "the Sacred Months have passed"."

So according to my opponent, verse 9:3 and verse 9:5 refers to two different fights. He says that the order not to fight in verse 9:4 refers only to the non-muslims who converted or entered into a treaty in verse 9:3. While verse 9:5 refers to attack all non-muslims who are not in a reaty and who have not converted. Therefore, verse 9:5 does not refer to self-defense.


So the question becomes, are the non-muslims in verse 9:5 being attacked first for not converting and entering a treaty like those in verse 9:3, or are the muslims once again acting in self-defense?

Once again, no where in verse 9:5 does it say in the verse for muslims to attack first because they did not convert. So my opponent's argument fails. Yet at the same time, no where in the entire verse does it say that muslims attacked in self-defense. This means that the verse is ambiguous. The only thing the verse says is for muslims to attack and kill, but never states the reason why.


Yet the very context of the verse gives the reason why. And once again, for the third time, what is that reason:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers"


Dear audience, the evidence cannot be painted any clearer. The verse clearly refers to self-defense, as no where in the entire verse does it say for muslims to attack FIRST. It only says for the muslims to attack and does not give the direct reason in the verse, but gives it in the context of the verse, which clearly says that the non-muslims attacked first. Thus the evidence is clear, that muslims are only ordered to fight in self-defense. And when we consider the fact that verse 8:61 forbids muslims to fight those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says that there is no compulsion in religion, then the very context of the Qur'an clearly shows that islam teaches to fight in self-defense and not against those who are peaceful.



Lastly, my opponent concludes his argument with numerous verses of muslims being ordered to fight. Yet as we can see, not one says for muslims to fight and attack "First". Once again, the verses refer to self-defense, as proven by the very context of the verses in the Qur'an which says not to fight those who incline to peace (8:61), and that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Since the verse clearly says not to fight those who are peaceful, and since every verse in the Qur'an that refers to fighting never, ever, says to fight and attack FIRST, then the message of islam is clear, which is that every verse that mentions fighting refers to self-defense, as proven by the very context of the Qur'an. Thus islam should be recognized as a religion of peace.




Debate Round No. 2
1Devilsadvocate

Con

9:5 is not restricted to self defence:

5. Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


"If such is the case, then when we read verse 9:5, it should clearly state that Muslims should attack first. We
should see the word "First" in the verse, or at least a word synonymous to it. So let's quote the verse and see."

The fact that it didn't state the word 1st, proves that it was in self defence?

This doesn't even make sense. If I say "on December 18th kill all Muslims who have been fighting with U.S. troops. & in January kill Muslims wherever you find them." will you say that the 2nd fighting is in self defence, because I didn't say "1st"? The answer is no, the fact that it doesn't say the word 1st, doesn't mean that it isn't.
According to pros logic, since Verse 3 doesn't say the words "2nd", it means that it wasn't in self defence.

Further more Pro ignores the proof that verse 5 is not in self defence:

a) The self defence killing was already commanded in verse 3, to take place on "the greatest day".
Thus the verse 5 killing which is set for "when the Sacred Months have passed", & says "wherever you find them" is refering to the rest.
What was the difference between the 2 killings, other than that the 2nd one was non-discriminatory, on the rest of non believers.

b) If it was self defence it should be done right away.

c) Why does it refer to them as "Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)". It should have just said your enemy's/oppressors. The fact that it uses that term "Mushrikun" to describe him indicates that the war was religious in nature, & not simply self defence.


Continuing with his line of reasoning, he similarly rejects all the other verses since they don't say the word "1st".

As I already pointed out this reasoning is ridiculous.

MORE SOURCES:

sura 25, verse 52 states: “Therefore, do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with this, a great striving.”


Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah


Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:

"... when the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet...




HISTORY:

The entire culture of the land once known as Mesopotamia was swept away in the final conquest of the region by Muslim Arabs in the 7th century CE which resulted in the unification of law, language, religion and culture under Islam.(1)


A list of categories of Muslim wars from, http://en.wikipedia.org.... I will detail part of 13.1:
    • 13.1 Early Islam (622-634)
    • 13.2 Shia Martyrdom (680)
    • 13.3 Córdoba revolt (818)
    • 13.4 Execution of Christians in Córdoba (850-859)
    • 13.5 Anti-Jewish violence in Muslim Spain (1010-1013)
    • 13.6 Pogrom in Fez (1033)
    • 13.7 Massacre of Jews in Granada (1066)
    • 13.8 Almohads of Spain
    • 13.9 The Assassins (1124)
    • 13.10 Forced conversions of Jews in Yemen
    • 13.11 Ibn Taymiyyah
    • 13.12 Bahmani sultans (1347-1480)
    • 13.13 Timur (Tamerlane)
    • 13.14 Fes Massacre (1465)
    • 13.15 Safavid kings (1501)
    • 13.16 Massacre after the battle of Chitod (1568)
    • 13.17 Barbary pirates
    • 13.18 Expulsion of Jews from Yemen (1679-1680)
    • 13.19 Massacre of Jews in Safed (1660)
    • 13.20 Rise of Wahhabism (1744)
    • 13.21 el Djezzar (1783-1801)
    • 13.22 Tetouan Pogrom (1790)
    • 13.23 Jihad in Africa (1810-1818)
    • 13.24 Java War (1825-1830)
    • 13.25 Suleika affair (1834)
    • 13.26 Safed and Hebron violence (1834-1835)
    • 13.27 Forced conversions of Jews in Iran (1838-1839)
    • 13.28 Damascus Blood Libel (1840)
    • 13.29 Massacres of the Assyrians (1840-1860)
    • 13.30 Jihad in Africa (1861)
    • 13.31 Rafin Jaki battle (1873)
    • 13.32 April Uprising (1876-1912)
    • 13.33 Jihad in Sudan and Egypt (1880)
    • 13.34 Hamidian massacres (1894-1896)
    • 13.35 Settat and Taza pogrom 1903/1907
    • 13.36 Greek Genocide (1914-1923)
    • 13.37 Genocide of Assyrians (1914-1920)
    • 13.38 Massacre of Assyrians in Iran (1914-1915)
    • 13.39 Ottomans jihad - 1914
    • 13.40 Armenian genocide 1915
    • 13.41 Arab riots 1920-1921
    • 13.42 Moplah rebellion
    • 13.43 Forced conversion of Jewish orphans in Yemen
    • 13.44 Muslim Brotherhood
    • 13.45 Hebron massacre
    • 13.46 Simele massacre
    • 13.47 Jaffa Massacre
    • 13.48 Rashid Ali coup
    • 13.49 Farhud pogrom
  • 14 Nazi Germany

Early Islam - 622-634:




3. Attack upon the 'Banu Qaynuqa' Jews

6. Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews.
7. Massacre of the Banu Qurayza Jews.
Medina in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves, after the Jewish tribes refused to accept Muhammad and convert to his movement.

9. The torture and killing of Kenana ibn al-Rabi
10. The slaying of an old woman from Banu Fazara
11. The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his daughter.
12. The attack upon Tabuk. for becoming an apostate.
Though they offered to surrender, Muhammad felt the need to make an example of them. "The adult males were condemned to death, and the women and children to slavery. Between 600 and 900 males were beheaded ." Three large Jewish tribes dwelled in Medina in Muhammad's time: the Banu Nadir, Banu Kainuka, and Banu Qurayza. When war broke out between Muhammad's new supporters and the Meccans, the Jewish clans of Medina remained neutral and were at first unharmed. Nevertheless after the 627 failed Meccan siege of Medina, Muhammad accused the Jews of siding with the Meccans and ordered an attack on them. The reference to this episode in Islamic text is in Sura 33 of the Qu'ran, known as “The Clans.”[68] (The Qu'ran tells of three Jewish tribes conquered by Muhammad near Medina, "Two were permitted to choose conversion or exile, but the third was allowed only conversion or death."[69]).

(1)http://www.ancient.eu.com...

Fatihah

Pro

As we can clearly see above, my opponent has failed to quote the words "attack first" in verse 9:5 of the Qur'an. No where are these words mentioned, or anything synonymous to it, within the verse. Yet my opponent insists on suggesting that the verse means to attack first, despite the words not being there. This is clearly illogical. For any reasonable person can see, in order to claim words mean something, either the words or its synonym should be there. This is simple basic, English.


Does "The Dog is fast" mean the same as "the cat is fast"? Of course not. Why? Because the word "Dog" and "Cat" are not synonymous or the same. In order for words to mean the same, they should be synonymous.


Yet when my opponent is asked to quote the words "attack first" from verse 9:5 or anything synonymous to it, he provides ......nothing. Thus the evidence is clear, that verse 9:5 does not refer to muslims attacking first, for the obvious reason, which is ......the words are not there.


But in an effort to defend this obvious fact, my opponent states:


"This doesn't even make sense. If I say "on December 18th kill all Muslims who have been fighting with U.S. troops. & in January kill Muslims wherever you find them." will you say that the 2nd fighting is in self defence, because I didn't say "1st"? The answer is no, the fact that it doesn't say the word 1st, doesn't mean that it isn't."


It should be noted that my opponent's example refutes absolutely nothing. My opponent tries to imply that I claim that the verse means self-defense because it does not say "attack first". Yet this claim is false. My exact words are:

"Once again, no where in verse 9:5 does it say in the verse for muslims to attack first because they did not convert. So my opponent's argument fails. Yet at the same time, no where in the entire verse does it say that muslims attacked in self-defense. This means that the verse is ambiguous. The only thing the verse says is for muslims to attack and kill, but never states the reason why."

As we all can see clearly above, I clearly stated that the verse does not mean attack first AND it does not mean self-defense. The actual meaning of the verse alone is ambiguous as to who attacked first. So my opponent's analogy completely fails.


My argument that the verse means self-defense is based not on the actual meaning of the verse, but the context of the verse, which clearly states in verse 13 of the same chapter:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

As we can clearly see, the very context of the verse states who attacked first, which were the non-muslims. Thus the evidence is clear, that the verse refers to self-defense based on the very context of the verse.


My opponent continues and says:

"The self defence killing was already commanded in verse 3, to take place on "the greatest day".
Thus the verse 5 killing which is set for "when the Sacred Months have passed", & says "wherever you find them" is refering to the rest.

What was the difference between the 2 killings, other than that the 2nd one was non-discriminatory, on the rest of non believers."


Once again, my opponent's interpolation of the verse fails, as he failed to quote anything from verse 9:3 which states that self-defense killing took place on the greatest day, and that verse 5 refers to a different fight from verse 3. Simply put, since nothing in verse 9:3 states self-defense killing, nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise, then giving the verse such a meaning fails again. And since nothing in verse 9:5 says for muslims to attack first or anything synonymous to it, then this interpolation also fails.


He then states:

"b) If it was self defence it should be done right away."


This is a flawed accusation, as there is nothing in the meaning of self-defense which states "it should be done right away".


He also states:

"c) Why does it refer to them as "Mushrikun (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah)". It should have just said your enemy's/oppressors. The fact that it uses that term "Mushrikun" to describe him indicates that the war was religious in nature, & not simply self defence."


A religious war can be fought in self-defense, so this makes no sense. In fact, my opponent's very own argument proves so, since it is his claim that non-muslims are fighting in defense of religious attacks by muslims. Similarly, muslims can also be attacked based on the same premise. My opponent's argument fails again by his own logic.

Finally, my opponent concludes his argument again, by quoting countless verses and hadiths stating for muslims to fight. But once again, not one of them ever states "attack first". So once again, my opponent's argument fails.



In short, my opponent claims that the verses in the Qur'an and in islamic sources that refer to fighting means that the muslims are ordered to "attack first", yet not one of the verses, I repeat, not one of them ever state to attack first. So my opponent's argument fails.


Yet I have presented verses from the Qur'an which clearly states that the non-muslims attacked first, (9:13), that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61), and that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Thus the very context of the verses of fighting is clear that the verses refer to fighting in self-defense. Thus it should be recognized once again, that islam is a religion of peace.
Debate Round No. 3
1Devilsadvocate

Con

My opponent seems to think that I'm saying, that the verse it's self clearly states that it was not in self defence.
I provided evidence that verse 5 is not self defence. My opponent responds, but it doesn't say the word 1st.
Let me make it clear, I am inferring from the context, & the wording that the battle was not for self defence.
I don't need it to say strait out in the verse itself for it to be obvious what it means.


My opponents response:

"Once again, my opponent's interpolation of the verse fails, as he failed to quote anything from verse 9:3 which states that self-defense killing took place on the greatest day, and that verse 5 refers to a different fight from verse 3. Simply put, since nothing in verse 9:3 states self-defense killing, nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise, then giving the verse such a meaning fails again. And since nothing in verse 9:5 says for Muslims to attack first or anything synonymous to it, then this interpolation also fails."


The verses are not discussing the event, they are commands. 2 commands were given:
1) On "the greatest day(s)" Kill the idol worshipers , with the exception of those who have not failed you. (v.3-4)
2) Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill idol worshipers wherever you find them. (v.5)

It is clear that 2 separate fights are being commanded here set to take place at 2 different times.
They are in 2 separate verses, with an exclusion clause on the 1st verse in between, followed by a sentence starting with the words "than (after that)...".
(Also, the 1st verse it says kill with an exclusion clause the 2nd one not only says kill without an exclusion clause but includes the words "wherever you find them".)

Compare: "On December 18th kill all Muslims, except the peaceful ones. Than in January kill Muslims wherever you find them."

I think that this analogy sums up my argument pretty well.
This analogy doesn't just show that v. 5 could be understood as an offensive battle,
but rather it clearly shows that v. 5 must be be understood as an offensive battle.

(Another minor point is that it if it was a war for survival they would not have waited.)

"Finally, my opponent concludes his argument again, by quoting countless verses and hadiths stating for Muslims to fight. But once again, not one of them ever states "attack first". So once again, my opponent's argument fails."

It doesn't need to say the word 1st.
Let's take a look at some examples from the previous round:

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
Mohamed himself says the women & children can be killed since "they are one of them".

Are women & children "one of them" in terms of being a threat?

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Sounds like forced conversion to me.

Koran (9:29) - "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."

Why is the emphasis & details about religion?
It should just say "destroy the enemy/oppressors". but no, not a word about oppressors/enemies, all it says is kill the following religions.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:

"... when the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet...




And from the beginnings of Islam:

"1. The killing of Abu Afak.
The poet who mocked Muhammad was killed with "one blow of his sword when the latter slept outside his house."[58]"

"7. Massacre of the Banu Qurayza Jews.
Medina in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves, after the Jewish tribes refused to accept Muhammad and convert to his movement.
[63]"

"10. The slaying of an old woman from Banu Fazara[65]"


"12. The attack upon Tabuk.[66] for becoming an apostate.[67]
Though they offered to surrender, Muhammad felt the need to make an example of them. "The adult males were condemned to death, and the women and children to slavery. Between 600 and 900 males were beheaded ."[62] "

If the voters have any questions please put it in the comment section, & I will answer it.

Thank you for reading.

Vote Con!
Fatihah

Pro

Dear audience, the equivocation displayed by my opponent is something extraordinary. For it is my opponent who states that verses 9:3-5 of the Qur'an states for muslims to attacf first. Yet when asked to quote the words "attack first" or anything synonymous to it, he presents.........nothing. In 4 rounds of debate, he still fails to present it. It's amazing. Thus the claim that the verse says to attack first is clearly false. For words cannot mean something if the words are not there. it's that simple.


Not only this, but when asked of my opponent to quote any verse from the entire Qur'an that says "attack first" or anything synonymous to it.....again he presents.....nothing. In the over 6,000 verses of the Qur'an, he could not find one with these words, or anything synonymous to it. Thus the evidence is clear, that no verse in the entire Qur'an says for muslims to attack first.


So instead, what my opponent tries to do ...is reason with the audience. He quotes verses that mentions fighting, then provides reasoning as to why these verses mean to attack first, despite the words not being there.


So he states:


"1) On "the greatest day(s)" Kill the idol worshipers , with the exception of those who have not failed you. (v.3-4)
2) Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill idol worshipers wherever you find them. (v.5)

It is clear that 2 separate fights are being commanded here set to take place at 2 different times.
They are in 2 separate verses, with an exclusion clause on the 1st verse in between, followed by a sentence starting with the words "than (after that)...".
(Also, the 1st verse it says kill with an exclusion clause the 2nd one not only says kill without an exclusion clause but includes the words "wherever you find them".)"

So according to my opponent, because the verses make a command to fight, then this means that it refers to an offensive war, instead of a defensive war. This makes no sense. For clearly, a person can be commanded to fight out of defense as well. Didn't the President of America make a command to fight the taliban? Yes. Yet my opponent would not call that an offensive war, but a defensive war. So stating that it's an offensive war just because it was a command fails.


So the question still remains, for what reason are the muslims ordered to fight? Clearly, the verses say to fight. I agree. But what reason is that. Again, the answer comes not from me, but from the very context of the verses which says:

"Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger and they were first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers."


The reason is clear. The muslims attacked in self-defense, for the very verse above clearly states that the non-muslims attacked first.

But the Qur'an does not stop there. It also states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peace(8:61).


Dear audience, how clearer can the evidence be? My opponent's argument clearly does not hold. The very context of the Qur'an states that muslims cannot fight anyone who is peaceful and cannot use compulsion. So the argument that the verses of fighting refer to an offensive war against peaceful people fails.


But again, my opponent continues by concluding his argument with more quotes from hadiths, the Qur'an, and other sources, that mentions the order for muslims to fight and concludes that they mean to create an offensive fight against innocent and peaceful people. Yet not one of them, I repeat, not one of them mentions to attack first. So his logic fails.



So in conclusion, the topic of the debate is whether the order to fight in islam is to attack innocent people, or in self-defense. My opponent has stated that they refer to an offensive war, meaning to attack first on peaceful people. Yet my opponent has presented the following evidence:


Verses from the Qur'an and islamic sources that mentions fighting, attacking, and killing, but not one of them ever states for the muslims to attack first, or anything synonymous to it, nor does it say so in any of the Qur'an or Sunnah.


Therefore, since the verses that mention fighting never say to fight and attack first,or anything synonymous to it, nor is it mentioned in the entire Qur'an or Sunnah, then it is completely illogical to claim that they mean to attack first. Words cannot mean something if the words are not there. So my opponent's argument fails.


Yet it is my claim that the verses refer to self-defense. That yes, the verses do mention fighting, but the reason for the fight is never mentioned, so it is ambiguous. To know the reason for the fighting, you must refer to the context. To prove so, I have provided context from the Qur'an itself:

Verse 9:13 that says that non-muslims attacked first.

Verse 8:61 that says that muslims are prohibited to fight those who incline to peace

Verse 2:256 which says that there is no compulsion in religion.



Thus the evidence is clear, that since muslims can neither use compulsion or fight people who are peaceful, then that means that every verse that refers to fighting refers o self-defense, further proven by the fact that verse 9:13 says that the muslims were attacked first.


Once again, islam should be acknowledged as exactly what the Qur'an and Sunnah demonstrates, which is Islam is a religion of peace.


As salaamu alaikum












Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
1DevilsadvocateFatihahTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No idea who is right about the contentious verse, but Pro fails to refute Con's example of the attack on Tabuk, "though they offered to surrender."