The Instigator
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Islam is a religion of terror

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
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 10 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,458 times Debate No: 46402
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (141)
Votes (10)

 

Zarroette

Pro

Islam is a religion of terror

Hello, Donald. We both know exactly why I’ve proposed this debate. If you accept, I will retract my comments about you being a coward. Of course, if you don’t, my comments will stand. It’s your choice, choose carefully.

Opening for acceptance; no new arguments in the last round. Only content posted in this debate is to be judged. Since we’re trying to find the meaning of something, I think it’s only fair to expect semantics, so I won’t disallow that. If you have any problems with the stipulations, please don’t accept, instead ask me in the comments beforehand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we might begin, I want to clarify some common misconceptions about my stance on Islam. It’s incredibly frustrating to see people intentionally straw-man/ not understand my arguments, especially after I repeat them several times.

Q: Are you a racist?

A: No, I am not anti-Arab, I am anti-Islam (Islam isn't a race). I hate the religion, not necessarily the people who worship it. If I do hate the people that worship it, that’s because I hate the religion they are espousing, not because I dislike their skin colour.

Q: Are you anti-freedom to religion?

A: Islam is incompatible with Democracy to a degree, or really any notion of freedom. I don’t have a problem with women dressing in Burkas if they want; that’s freedom of expression. I don’t mind Mosques being built, but I don’t think that should be funded by the government. But in order for Muslims to be able to practice their religion, in tandem with Christians, Sikhs, Scientologists etc.-, you need a secular state that caters to all. Islam wants power, it wants to impose itself everywhere, including government. Do you now see how this is incompatible? Do you now see how Islam is anti-freedom? Under an Islamic state, there would be no Democracy.

Q: Do you hate Muslims?

A: Not necessarily, although I think that most Muslims don’t follow their holy books completely, so as to be culturally acceptable. If ‘Muslims’ are being peaceful, if they aren’t calling for Sharia and the beheading of those who insult the prophet, then these people are probably fit to live in a civilised society, and I don’t really have a problem with them.

donald.keller

Con

Let's begin.
Debate Round No. 1
Zarroette

Pro


Islam is a religion of terror


Firstly, I want to retract my comments about Donald being a coward, and apologise for them. He accepted this debate within 10 minutes (maybe even 5, I wasn’t watching that closely). I also thank him for accepting, and promise no more animosity, from my end, in this debate.



The quran is the holy book of Islam


1. It is generally accepted that the quran is the book Muslims should be following. If it wasn’t, then why would the book exist in the first place? If it was there to be followed at a whim, rather than seriously followed, then wouldn’t it be redundant? Besides, how would anyone know how to distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims if the Muslims weren’t following anything?


2. Allah, the god of Islam, commands the following of his word: "O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Sustainer; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people" (5:67). Can someone be Muslims without following the word of Allah? I don’t think so, do you? Since someone cannot be a Muslim without following the word of Allah, and his commands are laid out in the quran, it therefore follows that the quran is to be read and followed by Muslims.


Allah speaks again on following the quran: "And We have revealed the Book [quran] to you which has the clear explanation of everything and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit." (16:89)


Muslims are to follow the quran, as ordered by Allah.



A1: Violence is commanded in the quran


The Quran contains in excess of 100 ayahs (verses) that command Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Allah also expresses threats of violence towards non-believers. I mean, the quran even uses the word ‘terror’, in regards to fighting the infidels. I’m not going to list them all here, but I’ll sure list quite a few [2]:


- "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" Quran (2:191-193)


- "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:244)


- "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." Quran (2:216)


- "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." Quran (3:56)


- "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151)


- "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." Quran (4:74)


- "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:76)


- "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." Quran (4:89)


- "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,-" Quran (4:95)


- "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.” Quran (8:12)


A2: Allah does not prevent terrorism inspired by the quran


I don’t think I need to go into detail to prove that Muslims commit terrorism (think 9/11, for a start). Allah, being omnipotent as he is ("Allah is capable to do anything"[35: 1]), has failed to prevent terrorism inspired by the quran on two accounts:



  1. He does not prevent terrorist attacks, thereby it is safe to assume that Allah is okay with this. Thus, it can be concluded that since Allah is okay with terrorism in the name of Islam, Islam is a religion of terrorism.

  2. If, somehow, the quran has been interpreted incorrectly, that Islam does not call Muslims to war, or that by “terror”, the quran means something completely else (which I won’t concede, but I’ll humour this idea for this point only), why then did Allah allow for such a vague holy book? Again, did he want the possibility of terrorism? Is an omnipotent being incapable of inspiring books to his will? Did he not think that by “terror, fight, kill…”, that people might take this literally?


A3: Allah’s commands might frighten even Muslims


Would not being called to war be scary? From my previous arguments, it’s clear that Allah wants his believers to go to war with everyone, to fight to the death, to kill in some instances. Would this not be scary to believe in? Think about it: right now, imagine that an omnipotent being is angry at you for not fighting the infidels. When you walk past infidels on the street, and you’re not converting them, your god, Allah, is angry with you. This is a god that can do anything, remember. Isn’t that scary? Does that not terrify you? Isn’t Islam bringing, in some instances, terror to even its believers?


Take this, from the quran, for example:


“Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.” Quran (4:34)


Would not women be scared to be hit? Wouldn’t it be somewhat terrifying to think that your husband could beat you? This is found within the quran, therefore it is part of being a follower of Islam.



Conclusion (thus far)


I think I’ve outlined 3 reasons why Islam is a religion of terror. The call to bring terror and violence (which is terrifying, I think) is repeated many times in the quran, Allah is not actively preventing terrorism done in the name of Islam, and being a Muslim can be terrifying. I’ll expand and clarify my points should my opponent address them.


References/Sources



[1] http://freequranonline.org...


[2] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...


[3] http://www.onislam.net...



donald.keller

Con

Premise I: Prescriptive and Descriptive Text.

The text of a holy book are not all the same. There are two types, Prescriptive and Descriptive. The names give away their differences, with Prescriptive text being text Prescriptive to the reader, like a moral law, or important how-to information. Descriptive text being text that is used to describe something, like a war, the feelings of the characters, or what culture was like. It important to understand these different texts before making assumptions.

Premise II: Definition of Terror

Terror: the use of terror to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons; terrorism. (1)

Terror is not the same as going to war. Being asked to fight is not the same as being asked to commit terror. It is important to remember that the resolution references Terror as in Terrorism, as to not allow the goal posts to be moved through semantics.

1) http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttal I: Islamic Text.

Pro has listed off numerous texts from the Quran, but if we look at the whole passage, we see the meaning behind the text change rapidly. Let's look at Pro's first text:

- "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" Quran (2:191-193)

This text has been quite literally cherry-picked. If we look just one verse back, we see this:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." Quran (2:190)(2)

In this passage, fighting is referencing self defense, likely on a national scale. This would be likely due to the Middle-East's vast religious diversity and the habit of Middle-East religions to war often back then. The passage says to fight, but not to "Transgress", or sin. Pro's arguments also includes poor translation of what the words used mean. Al-Fitnah does not mean Disbelief, it means to Try the Lord, or test him, and is used to reference a grave transgression against the lord (3). Pro had to both cherry-pick text and lied about the meaning of words to make the text look more violent.

Pro's attempt at demonizing the meaning of the text is so grave that she got the entirety of the second passage wrong. The passage goes like this: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." This is clearly explaining the meaning of 'fighting' in this passage, and every other passage in the Book (Surat Al-Baqarah).

When the Quran says to Fight in the way or cause of Allah, it is often referring to self-defense, not Terror. We see this here in the text:
"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." Quran (2:216)"

This text is referencing self defense. It is saying that defense is prescribed. This is an example of not understanding the culture or situations under which the text was written. The culture and pagan religions in Mecca and much of Arabia was violent and oppressive. This lead to the need for religions to fight if they were to survive. This is fighting in self-defense, not terror and oppression.

- "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." Quran (3:56)

This isn't referencing man-made terror, it's referencing God's wrath. This does not imply that the religion endorses it's own people to commit terror.

- "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151)

This is an example of Descriptive text. This is not instructions prescribed to the reader, but a description of the writer's feeling. We see a similar example in the Bible. The Israelites sing a song condemning the Babylonians to the pain and death the Israelites suffered. This isn't a prescribed text from God or a command, but a description of how they felt and what they wanted, not how God felt or what he wanted. This is simple misrepresentation.

All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages.

2) http://quran.com...
3) http://islamqa.info...

Rebuttal II: Allah and Women

Pro's Argument II is entirely fallacious. Just because Muslims commit terror doesn't mean Islam promotes terror. This statement is in grave error. We see this in the US, where Islam commits only 6% of the terrorist attacks, compared to 42% from Latinos (4). Pro's argument implies the Latino culture promotes terrorism.

Pro's statement about women is also irreverent. It has nothing to do with terror, or at least not the terror seen in terrorism. The Quran also gives women rights to chose whom they marry, and to divorce. Sharia Law is cultural, and has no grounds in the Quran. It's important to understand that Muslims are actually very loving towards their wives, less likely to be violent then other Americans. While 15-25% of Jewish women are abused, the same as the general population, only 10% of Muslim women are abused (5).

4) http://tinyurl.com...
5) http://tinyurl.com...

Argument I: Islamic Texts.

The Quran is full of text promoting peace and love. While the text only supports fighting in self-defense, it doesn't promote terror or unjustified warfare. It does, however, preach love and tolerance, even towards women.

"The most perfect believer in faith is the one whose character is finest and who is kindest to his wife" Quran (5:282)

While the religion does believe in Marriage Roles, it also believes in being kind and loving to one's wife.

"It may be that Allah will bring about love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity... Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, Allah loves those who are equitable." - Quran, 60:8-9

Another example of how the Quran preaches that violence may only be done in self defense. This passage preaches loving each other. The passage claims you may only not love them if they declare war on you for your religion or if they drive you from your home, both of which where major issues in the Middle East and especially Arabia when the passage was written.

Argument II: Religion v Culture.

One error in Pro's assessment of Islam is in not considering culture and religion. Looking at trends among Muslims, most violent, anti-women's rights, and anti-democratic views correlate in the same areas. This implies that terror and hate isn't religion based, but cultural. Most issues correlate in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Muslims are actually less approving of killing innocent people in awar, which is a prime focus of terrorism and terror. They are actually against it more than anyone else, being one of the only 2 groups that is more against it than for it (5).

military target civilians.gifindividual or small group target civilians.gif
Muslims are widely against killing innocent people, even when the Muslims of other cultures are took into account. Muslims in Britain, Germany, and France are even less approving of killing innocent people, and Muslims in Spain are only slightly more approving (6). As this shows, People who follow Islam is less likely to approve of Terror tactics, unless they live in Iran and Iraq, signs that approving of terror is more cultural.

While other groups believed most US Muslims are sympathetic towards groups like Al-Qaeda, 92% of Muslims claimed US Muslims had no sympathy to Al-Qaeda (6). Islamic approval of Suicide Bombing and violence towards civilians is immensely low. Pakistan is 87% against it, while most nations are above 50% against it in all cases. This doesn't take into account how many people are against it in most cases. The question leaves open Rarely Justified and Sometimes Justified (7). Approval towards Suicide Bombing as Often or Somethings Justified is low, with the average being no higher than 17%. And support toward Bin Laden has declined in every nation but Nigeria. The average approval rating being no higher than 20%.

Killing Civilians was also took into account. With approval towards killing civilians being less than 25% in every nation that isn't Middle Eastern, we can conclude that approving of killing civilians and suicide bombing is cultural, not Religious. Most Muslims in the Middle East support Democracy, and have no qualms with other religions or Christianity. There isn't a single Middle-Eastern nation where more than 50% of the population approves of any terrorist group. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda's approval ratings are below 20% in EVERY nation (8).

We can see that there is no true connection between Islam and Terror by looking at Pakistan. The nation believes in following the Quran strictly more than any other, at 82%. Their approval of Suicide Bombing and Terrorist groups are lower than any other nation.

Approval towards Suicide Bombing, Terrorist groups, killing civilians, and the use of terror is cultural (Iraq/Iran) and NOT Religious.

6) http://tinyurl.com...
7) http://tinyurl.com...
8) http://tinyurl.com...

Conclusion: Verses showing Islam as a religion of terror are all cherry-picked and misrepresented. The Quran preaches love, while Terror and hate are more Cultural and not based off Islam. Even in the Middle East, Muslim are not supportive of terror.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarroette

Pro

Premise I: Prescriptive and Descriptive Text.

This appears to be my opponent’s subjective interpretation, and is no way an argument in itself.



Premise II: Definition of Terror

My opponent has used a very particular definition of the word “terror”, of which I am not accepting by itself. The reason being is that terror can also mean many things [1]:

ter·ror

noun

1. intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.

2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.

3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.

4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

As to why these definitions matter, take my opponent’s argument here: “Terror is not the same as going to war.” If you take the definitions I have provided, it is conceivable that war could bring about terror; in fact, I ask you think about a war which did not involve: intense fear, intense anxiety, frightful violence or bloodshed, etc. Thus, it can be concluded that war and fighting do indeed bring about terror, and since war and fighting are essentially commanded in the quran, Islam is a religion of terror.

I ask you, as a reader, to keep these alternative definitions in mind whilst reading my responses. For you, I will even point out where my opponent’s arguments are incompatible with these definitions.




Rebuttal I: Islamic Text.



My quote: -
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...”

“In this passage, fighting is referencing self defense, likely on a national scale.”

This is a common, incorrect excuse for the obvious violence commanded in the quran, and I will clarify in every instance. The historical context involves Muhammad and his followers recently relocating in Medina, and they were certainly not under attack. In fact, the Muslims were the aggressors, as later shown by the driving of Meccans out of their city, known as the ‘conquest of Mecca’ [2]. Clearly, invading a city with an army, and fighting for land, isn’t done in self-defence.

“The passage says to fight”

Does fighting not bring about terror of some kind? Remember, keep in mind all definitions of terror.

“Al-Fitnah does not mean Disbelief, it means to Try the Lord, or test him, and is used to reference a grave transgression against the lord (3).”

The word is dependent on context, and can certainly mean ‘disbelief’. This is explained here [10] (the word disbelief is shown in the 4th example). Again, my opponent uses definitions far too narrowly.

My quote: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."

Firstly, please remember the definitions of ‘terror’. Secondly, fighting causes terror, as I’ve already argued; the quran certainly calls for fighting. Lastly, we have another instance of this cry for “self-defence”. Again, consider that the Muslims went on to invade Mecca and capture it; the historical context flatly contradicts.

My quote: - "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." Quran (3:56)

“This isn't referencing man-made terror, it's referencing God's wrath. This does not imply that the religion endorses it's own people to commit terror.”

Is Allah not part of the Islamic faith? Is any terror he brings not part of Islam? Here, my opponent essentially concedes that Allah does bring terror, hence, it follows that Islam is a religion of terror.

My quote: - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151)

My opponent’s criticisms here are artistic interpretation, backed by nothing other than my opponent’s thoughts.

My opponent has also failed to properly address the majority of ayahs I have provided. Blanket statements, that do not address the specifics of my ayahs, should not be taken as arguments. Please, as a reader take note of this. These include the: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of the ayahs I provided. These ayahs command violence of all kinds, and thus will result in terror. In this regard, extend my argument.




Rebuttal II: Allah and Women

“Just because Muslims commit terror doesn't mean Islam promotes terror.”

This is a serious straw-man. I did not argue that because Muslims are violent, Islam is. I argued that because Allah allows such violence in his name, which he does not stop, that he must want Islam to be a religion of violence. Extend my argument.

My uncontested, 3rd argument

“Pro's statement about women is also irreverent. It has nothing to do with terror, or at least not the terror seen in terrorism”

Wrong! It only seems to have nothing to do with terror because of the unfairly narrow definition my opponent provided. If you are to look at the other definitions I provided, most of them are clearly consistent with the concept of terror.



“The Quran also gives women rights to chose whom they marry, and to divorce. Sharia Law is cultural, and has no grounds in the Quran.”

My opponent has conveniently dropped the quote from the quran I gave, which instructs men to hit women. Again, my opponent’s argument here has nothing to do with what I argued (women becoming terrified in being hit), so my argument is to be extended.



Argument I: Islamic Texts.

My opponent gives examples of where the Islamic texts command peace and love. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it can't promote terror, as this would be a false dichotomy.

I’ve addressed the self-defence issue where my opponent has brought it up. You should take note of: “...and who have not driven you out from your homes”, as this implies violence and terror is permitted when invading other lands, which is not self-defence (as I explained in the conquest of Mecca section).

Besides, fighting still brings about terror, yet fighting is commanded in the quran. Warfare brings about terror, justified or not. Again, remember the definitions of terror that I gave.



Argument II: Religion v Culture.

My opponent tries to argue that only a few Muslims, commit/want terrorist attacks. What about the ones that do want terrorist attacks? Are they not terrifying? Will their interpretations of Islam not bring about terror, if they were enacted?


“One error in Pro's assessment of Islam is in not considering culture and religion.”

Culture and religion are not mutually exclusive; you can have both culture and religion at the same time. It is also possible that your religion is reflected in your culture, as is the case in not just in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. So, if your religion is reflected in your culture, and that culture is one of terror, then it follows that your religion is one of terror.

My opponent cites all these statistics that indicate non-terrorism (which is different from terror), yet this does not mean that Islam is not influencing terror.

Take these for example [3]:

61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans. Egypt’s population is ~95% Muslim [4][5].

41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans. Pakistan is, unsurprisingly, is a country under Islamic governance (not quite 50%, as my opponent argued, but this is obviously an alarming statistic).

83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose). Palestine is, again, a country with mostly Muslims.

Are you starting to see the common denominator? No? Here’s more [6]:

49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)

49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)

39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative) (Indonesia is ~87% Muslim [7])

More? [8]

59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003

41% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2007

When will there be suspicions raised? [9]

31% of Turks (Turkey was 99% Muslims [12]) support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.

There’s more [11]

One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children.

There’s plenty more that I haven’t listed, too…

Could Islam be influencing these opinions? Is it really a coincidence that all these countries with unfavourable views on terrorism, are mostly Islamic? Sure, some statistics show positive opinions from Muslims, but what exactly is inspiring these other people to have these terroristic opinions? If it’s Islam, aren’t these interpretations of Islam dangerous? Isn’t Islam inspiring terror? Sure, as my opponent’s statistics suggest, not all these Muslims are calling for every form of terror. But these things I’ve listed are related to terror, are they not?

References/Sources

[2] F.R. Shaikh: The Chronology of the Prophetic Events, Ta Ha Publishers Ltd., London,2001 p 72

[3] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...

[4] "Egypt from "The World Factbook"". American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). September 4,

2008.

[5] "Egypt from "U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs"". United States Department of State. September 30, 2008.

[6] http://www.pewglobal.org...

[7] "Penduduk Menurut Wilayah dan Agama yang Dianut" [Population by Region and Religion]. Sensus Penduduk 2010. Jakarta, Indonesia: Badan Pusat Statistik. 15 May 2010.

[8] http://www.forbes.com...

[9] http://www.people-press.org...

[10] http://islamqa.info...

[11] http://www.ynetnews.com...

[12] https://www.cia.gov...

donald.keller

Con

Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text.

This wasn't an argument. It's a premise. And it's widely accepted in religious studies and is a major part of Linguistics in general (1).

1) http://tinyurl.com...

Premise Rebuttal II: Definition.

Pro has started to play semantics, as I assumed she would. The premise behind the debates resolution is that it refers to the terror I defined, and anyone who recalls how this debate was started will know that it was. Pro says that going to war might bring terror, she is resorting to possibles and maybes, a weak case, if a case at all. By her claim, women are also a creature of terror, and food is an object of terror, as both are responsible for wars through out history.

This debate isn't about terror in general. Pro knows that but is extending the playing field and shifting the goal posts in hopes of scoring.

Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.

Pro has again cherry-picked the whole passage and rewritten it. I will, again, repost it for everyone to see:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] worship is for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." Quran (2:190:193)

As we see the correct text, it is clear that it is about self-defense. It says to fight those who fight you, which would have been a big deal in Arabia at the time of writing. Later in the text, we run across this: "expel them from wherever they have expelled you..." and this: "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there." Clear signs of self-defense. It is saying to reclaim the homes you were expelled from, and not to fight until they fight you.

Pro literally left out the key to this text. Reread her version and mine. You will find a "..." in place of "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there." Pro's attempt to cherry-pick and leave out important details TWICE should not go unnoticed.

When faced with the definition to the word Al-Fitnah, Pro has again resorted to maybes and possibles. Saying it's possible it could mean disbelief. In context, it clearly refers to invading and removing them from their land. Not once does the enemy not believing come in place in the text. As far as we know, the invaders could be Muslim as well.

Fighting =/= Terror. Fighting and terror are different, this is why Warfare and Terrorism are referred to as different types of fighting. Pro is now hiding behind her different definitions, and not facing the original meaning of the resolution. By her claims, self-defense is now an act of Terror. The Quran calls for fighting only in self-defense. Pro is using the words of the text out of context and without their meaning.

Pro has only hurt her case by referring to the Islamic conquest of Mecca. If she did her research, she would understand the finer details. In 628 AD, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was signed. The two factions, Banu Bakr and Khuza‘ah, split up between the Quraish and the Muslims. If one attacked, the other could retaliate. Khaza'ah ruled Mecca, and was attacked and massacred by Bakr. Having broke the truce, Bakr was at war with Muhammad. Muhammad besieged Mecca and retook it from Bakr. Muhammad had only kept true to the Treaty and the principles of self-defense.

In regards to the last text, Pro gives no rebuttal. She only says it's my opinion, and drops it. There is a clear line between Descriptive Text and Prescriptive Text, The text she brought up is only Descriptive, displaying an understanding of the culture and history at the time, and nothing else.

I didn't drop her other texts. I read them all and gave a full rebuttal that I will now repeat: "All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages." Her texts are just like the texts I talked about. Repeating the same line over again would have gotten bothersome. Her texts are referring to self-defense, or are nothing more than Descriptive Text.

Rebuttal II: Allah and Women

This is not a straw man fallacy. It is poor conduct to accuse someone of a fallacy and not explain how it is so. I am referring to the implication behind her text. And I have backed it up with statistics. Pro's accusation claims Islam promotes terror because some Muslim committed terror. I've shown that by the principle, Latino culture promotes Terrorism. Pro's claim is Fallacy of composition, assuming that because some bad examples commit terror, that their religion promotes terror. It's also False Cause and Correlation, following the same principle as to why it is such.

I ask Pro how Allah, someone who we ourselves don't believe in, would stop terrorism? Even if we did believe in him, did he not give everyone free will? This is the same as claiming to because the Government doesn't stop you from drinking, they promote drinking.

I didn't drop Pro's quote. I acknowledged it, of course, in the Middle East and many places in the world, there is nothing immoral about that quote. Pro is pulling Red Herring. Misrepresenting my case to make it easier to refute. I explained what Islamic law allows. The Quran gives both genders unique rights. the Quran, being written in a time when women had no rights, was quick to allows mention women as well was talking. Also. when a girl was forced into a marriage with a men she didn't love, she went to Muhammad. He went to her family and gave her the option to choose who to marry. She accepted the marriage, but Muhammad was entirely against forced marriages (1). He filled the Quran with text referring to women as equals. In regards to Pro's text, hitting someone is not terror, this is again resorting to maybes or possibles. This assumes that parents whom spank their child are terrorists.

2) http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.

Pro has cherry-picked again, and in grave error. She wrongly applies this phrase: "and who have not driven you out from your homes" to claim that Allah says to kill them regardless. If you read my text, you will see this:

"Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them..." - Quran, 60:8-9

Pro has cherry-picked my argument and used red herring. Pro's conduct is horrendous in this debate.

Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.

Referring to Muslims as terrifying shows Pro's position against Islam is one of bigotry. While Pro brings up a few who commit terror, I have shown that the majority whom read and interpret the Quran, interpret it as a book of peace, and are widely against terrorism and terror.

61% of Egyptians promote attacks against the US? This is a lie... The whole claim, including the sources. I have visited Pro's sources, they claim no such statistic. This should have been obvious when she sourced everything to the page, expect for these two sources.

Pro has no sourcing for her 41% statistic. She claims I said Pakistan approves of attacking Americans by 50%, although I never made such a claim, I, in fact, only used the number 50 twice, neither related to such an argument. I said no Middle Eastern country at all approves of any Terror Group by 50%. The only group that near that is Hamas. Pakistan is 87% against suicide bombings and attacking innocent people (3). Pro also lied in his claim about Palestine. Her sources claims none of these, and I've read the whole thing because it was one of my sources. The source does say Pakistan is 80% against killing innocent people (4).

Pro's claim about support for Osama also shows that the support is getting smaller. Pro's source is outdated by a literal decade. Pro's source is just an outdated version of my source, which is the same page and studies, but up to date. Looking at studies just 5 years later, we see Indonesia has a 25% approval rating toward Osama now. 28% is the highest outside of Palestine and Nigeria, both of which are a LOT more supporting of terror than any other nation (5). Pro's Forbes source doesn't defend her. The source is from Forbes, discussing how Bin Laden's and Al-Qaeda's approval rating have tanked.

Pro claim about the Israeli family slaughter is unsourced. 32% is low considering Palistine is one of the only two areas that have massive approval ratings towards terrorism. Since one of those is the same nation that approved of Hamas and have a high approval rating towards Terrorism, this only shows that these statistics correlate with region, not religion. Pro's second to last claim of Turkey is unsupported by her source. She has, again made up statistics to win, and lied about her source.

Almost every argument Pro made in this section is made up, and the sources never makes their respective claim. This is another example of horrendous conduct, and should also go against her Arguments. She has made her Arguments and sources unreliable.

3) http://tinyurl.com...
4) http://tinyurl.com...
5) http://tinyurl.com...

Conclusion: Pro had to lie about her sources and make up numbers and statistics to win. Pro also cherry-picked my aguments and texts numerous times to make them say what they never said.

The texts refers to fighting only in self defense, as Muhammad's history with Mecca also shows. The text do not promote terror. Every statistic correlates with area, showing the Islamic approval of Teror is cultural, not religious.
Debate Round No. 3
Zarroette

Pro


Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text.



I highly doubt that whilst writing, the quran’s authors were thinking ‘this is descriptive text, and this is prescriptive text’. How you construct intent here is not necessarily the intent of the authors, and will remain this way until you prove otherwise.


Premise Rebuttal II: Definition.



Con sets up an unfairly narrow definition of terror, and then accuses me of semantics when I point that out. This is a debate about terror, not my opponent’s narrow definition of it.

Take note of “Terror” in my opponent’s arguments. Notice how it is frequently capitalised? Have a look for yourself! Notice how the resolution isn’t capitalised? In fact, notice that my opponent frequently continues to capitalise the word ‘terror’, despite the resolution not capitalising? He is using his own, narrow definition that isn’t specified in the resolution! But the funniest thing is that he is even subtly admitting it in his work!

Again, I ask you think about a war which did not involve: intense fear, intense anxiety, frightful violence or bloodshed, etc. Terror in war is virtually assured, whereas women are unlikely to bring terror by themselves.


Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.

I’m going to drop the argument involving the Al-Fitnah ayah, because I’m wrong and for the sake of everyone, I want to remain intellectually honest. It does involve self-defence, however, the ayah also includes commandments of terror. I apologise for the error in judgement.



“Fighting =/= Terror. Fighting and terror are different, this is why Warfare and Terrorism are referred to as different types of fighting.”

Fighting almost always leads to terror. Could you please tell me of any instances that did not involve bloodshed, or intense feelings of anxiety, especially the ones in the quran? My opponent thinks that because the two aren’t the same, they are not related.

“The Quran calls for fighting only in self-defense.”


This is wrong (although, there are instances where self-defence is commanded), and I have a *fourth argument to show why…

“There is a clear line between Descriptive Text and Prescriptive Text, The text she brought up is only Descriptive, displaying an understanding of the culture and history at the time, and nothing else.”


Nowhere, in the quran or the Hadiths, does it talk of this. Do you think even the writers knew what the texts were, in terms of this?

"All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages…"


My opponent claims this, whilst admitting that he has not specifically explained why. Yes, I have misunderstood the two passages that he addressed, but it does not follow that the other ayahs are cherry-picked, and I will explain why they are not if my opponent decides to address my ayahs.


A4 (*fourth argument): Abrogation and the ayah of the sword


When there is contradiction in the quran, one is to retract the oldest of commandments, as Allah says:

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (quran 2:106)

Let’s have a look at abrogation in action:

“There is no compulsion in religion…” (quran 2:256)


This ayah suggests that you are not forced into Islam [2]. Well, Allah thought this was a bad idea, for the ayah was written in A.D ~622 [7][8], but another ayah of condemning non-believers was written in A.D 630/631[1]:

“Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then Kill the Muskrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and accept Islam … then leave their way free.” (quran 9:5)

The two flatly contradict. The first ayah, one of tolerance to non-believers, is abrogated for the second, which promotes killing non-repenting infidels.

It’s a cultural thing


Some Muslims cut off hands as punishment [3].


Hands commanded to be cut off for crimes: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in Hereafter.” (quran 5:33)


As expressed in the Hadith:


“The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise till they died.” (Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 795)


Some Muslims commit Jihad (struggle) bombing attacks (think 9/11)


Suicide encouraged for martyrdom: “Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill and are killed. Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.” (quran 9:111)


“It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (quran 8:67)


Coincidence?


Rebuttal II: Allah and Women



My opponent continues to straw-man my argument, continuing to argue purely in regards to Muslims. My argument has never been addressed properly in this debate. So, here it is again:

1) Some Muslims commit terror in the name of Islam

2) Allah is omnipotent and omniscient

3) Allah does not stop this terror

4) Therefore, we assume that Allah wants terror in the name of Islam


“I ask Pro how Allah, someone who we ourselves don't believe in, would stop terrorism?”


I’ve been through this: Allah is omnipotent and the author of creation. Do you not understand what such things entail?



“Even if we did believe in him, did he not give everyone free will?”

Sure, but he gave everyone free will, therefore he still wants terror. If he did not want terror, then he would not have granted free will.


“This is the same as claiming to because the Government doesn't stop you from drinking, they promote drinking.”


No, it isn’t, because governments aren’t omnipotent, nor are they the creators of the universe. Governments are limited in what they can do, compared to Allah.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I didn't drop Pro's quote. I acknowledged it, of course, in the Middle East and many places in the world, there is nothing immoral about that quote”


My opponent digressed heavily on my quote, as my quote was about hitting women, and now you’re saying that in the Middle East and other places, there is nothing immoral about hitting women. Here is my argument again:

1) The quran commands men to hit women in some circumstances

2) The potential threat of being hit is meant to frighten women

3) Therefore, meaning to frighten, as well as the fright of being hit, pertains to terror

This is my argument, and it would be wonderful if Con actually addressed it.




Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.



“While Pro brings up a few who commit terror, I have shown that the majority whom read and interpret the Quran, interpret it as a book of peace, and are widely against terrorism and terror.”


This is such an amusing argument, especially considering that Con accused me of judging a religion by its followers, in his straw-man of my other argument. Let me make this clear, again:

Not all Muslims are violent. However, I’m arguing that the religion itself is violent, and this is indicated by the violent followers. The peaceful ones, which seem to be a majority, are incorrectly interpreting the quran. There is one thing I should mention…

Muslims are allowed to lie: prevention (taqiyya)


Here are a few examples:

“The Prophet said, “War is deceit”” (Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 269)

“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 to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;(quran 16:106)

“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. (quran 3:28)

Basically, Muslims are allowed to lie to protect Islam, as might be the case in my opponent’s statistics.



“Almost every argument Pro made in this section is made up, and the sources never makes their respective claim.”


I ask you, as a member of the audience, not to take either of the debater’s words, and for you to search. Check my sources, and see for yourself if I am lying. I recommend using ‘control+f’ to scour my sources, but if you have a year or so of free time in the next 2 weeks, a manual search might be preferable. This way, you will find out who is lying.


References/Sources


[1]
Ali, Yusef, "The Holy Qur'an", published by Amana, Beltsville, Maryland, USA, 1989

[2] Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition, Part 3, pp. 37-38

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

[4] http://www.whyislam.org...

[5] http://www.godallah.com...

[6] http://www.thewaytotruth.org...

[7] Chronology of Prophetic Events, Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (2001) p.52 Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.

[8] MaM79;laM17;ah and the Purpose of the Law: Islamic Discourse on Legal Change from the 4th/10th to 8th/14th Century, Felicitas, Meta, Maria, Opwis, pg. 296. Volume 31 of Studies in Islamic Law and Society. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2010

donald.keller

Con

Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text.

Pro lacks understanding in this field of linguistics. The writers simply wrote, and rather or not something is descriptive or prescriptive depends on why it was written. If someone was writing of a war, most text there will be descriptive, but if he was writing the rules of war, it's prescriptive.

Premise Rebuttal II: Definition.

The Terror implied in the Resolution is the form of Terror I have defined. As the context under which this debate was formed proclaims. "The quran instructs its believers to bring terror to the infidels. This then translates into the majority of the world's terrorist being Muslim." -Pro, in the conversation leading to the creation of the debate (1)

The rest of Pro's argument makes no sense. Arguing about what words I capitalize and what words aren't. If Pro must know, I capitalize every word that is in the resolution's title because it stands out as important.

1) http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.

In regards to Fighting and Terror, the difference is in what they are, Terror doesn't attempts to cause anxiety, it is anxiety and fear. fighting doesn't. But even though fighting 'could' lead to terror, doesn't mean it is terror. Lets consider this. A leads to B, there A is B? Sex could lead to Babies, therefore Sex is Babies. The logic isn't sound. Fighting could lead to terror, 'could', but that doesn't mean the Quran promotes terror. It has so far only promoted self defense. Self defense does not equal Terror.

Prescriptive and Descriptive Text are linguistic concepts. When writing the Quran, they also didn't redefine vowels, analogies, adjectives, or nouns, but they are still there. Descriptive Text describes something while Prescriptive Text is instructive (2). The writers likely knew exactly what the text was while writing it, but rather or not they did isn't relevant, however. Pro's argument is Argument from Incredulity.

In regards to Argument IV. Pro quotes the text out of historical context. When discussing a historical book, you have to analyze the culture. This text was written during a 3 month period of peace. There was a war against the pagans in the area, and during the peace, Muhammad wrote telling the Pagans that they may leave in peace, but if they resumed hostilities and continued fighting, the Muslims would defend themselves. It is a text about self defense, once again. The text then continues on to discuss mercy and forgiveness. Pro, again, cherry-picked the statement and left out historical context (3)

This has been Pro's whole argument. Nothing she claims takes cultural context, historical context, or descriptive/prescriptive text into account, and usually leaves out surrounding text that explained it better.

As for culture, cutting off hands was a common day punishment, not a force of terror. Pro's own quote shows this as punishment for people who continue, or started, fighting the Muslims in war. This is a punishment for waging war. Not a punishment for a petty "crime" like Pro assumes. And Pro cherry-picks the Hadith, as always. Prior to her text, we see this:
"they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away."
Cutting off hands and feet were the punishment, in this case, for murder (4).

Pros next two text are gravely misrepresented. The text doesn't refer to suicide murder at all. This is quite obvious. It is saying that those who fight in the cause of Allah, and die, will be rewarded for his sacrifice. But never does it say to kill innocent people. It is that a solder fights knowing he will kill and possibly be killed. Not that he will kill himself murdering innocent people, that isn't mentioned at all in the text. It should be noted that the 'cause of Allah' so far has only ever been referred to as fighting in self-defense from another culture or religion.

"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." Quran (4:74). The text never proclaims fighting with terror. Finishing the text, we see the next verse is discussing the fighting being against oppression. "And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children" (5). The text doesn't say 'or', it says 'and'. This implies the 'cause of Allah' and 'fighting for the oppressed' are one in the same.

"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…" Quran (4:76) This text comes after the prior text. The cause of Allah here is the same as the cause in the prior text (fighting for the oppressed). This is also cherry-picked as the rest of the verse contains this: "and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak." The text discusses believers and non-believers alike working together to fight evil.

Pro's next text, Quran (4:89), is from the same group of verses. The "cause of Allah" here is the same as in the prior, and it is calling to fight for the oppressed, specifically, the religiously oppressed. And just like in the prior texts, it never calls for terror or trangression. The next passage Pro listed was Quran (3:95). It, like the prior, is apart of the same text, and fighting in it is against those who oppressed the Mulsims.

The last verse Pro mentioned was Quran (8:12). The full text is as follows: "[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." This isn't calling for Muslims to commit terror. This is an God-given punishment for not believing. Much like how other religions have a hell, Islam also has a realm of punishment for those who don't believe in Allah. It was important for Pro is leave out the rest of the text, because it shows that Allah's command to "strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." was for the Angels, not for people.

Pro wanted me to tackle each verse, and I have. That was the last of Pro's text supporting her case, I have concluded this Rebuttal.

2) http://tinyurl.com...
3) http://tinyurl.com...
4) http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttal II: Allah and Women.

Pro accuses me once again of Straw-man. As I've mentioned prior, it is poor conduct to accuse someone of a fallacy, without explaining how his logic was fallacious. Pro does not believe in Allah, nor do I. Then how are we to expect him to stop it (no offense.) The very argument is moronic. Even then, for Allah to stop it would contradict free will.

Pro's argument is entirely fallacious. If I kill in the name of my Mother, is she responsible? Did she want it? If she's dead (analogy for not existing), is it her fault that she didn't stop me? But if she is alive, and she calls 9-11 on me (sending me to hell), she did her job. God doesn't stop us from sinning, that is not his job. But it is likely suicide bombers go to hell.

"Sure, but he gave everyone free will, therefore he still wants terror. If he did not want terror, then he would not have granted free will."

I rest my case regarding poor and terrible logic. A parent gives their 18 year old child free will, but doesn't want them to misuse it. The Constitution gives everyone free will, does it also want terror? Does my mother want me to be an alcoholic because she gives me the free will to drink? She possibly doesn't even want me to drink, better yet be a drunk. In the end, Allah would punish any suicide bomber.

Pro does little to refute my case on women, cherry-picking the case. Dropping my entire case to focus on one text. Does telling a parent to spank his child also promote terror? This is text regarding punishment and discipline, not terror. Constantly abusing a wife is terror, hitting them in some circumstances, while bad, isn't terror. In the ancient Arabic culture, women were seen in the same light as children, to be disciplined if misbehaving, not abused and terrorized. The Quran doesn't promote terrorizing one's wife.

Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.

Accusing a religion of being a religion of violence, when very few who follow that religion interpret the text as such is ignorance. Again, Pro makes a false accusation of straw man without support. Claiming the religion is one of violence because a few small extremist groups believes it is is an extreme case of cherry-picking the population. If less then a few percent (if that) believe it is a religion promoting terrorism, than what of the vast majority?

The text regards those who are *forced* into lying, not casual lying. Calling war deceit isn't asking people to deceive each other. Besides, lying isn't terror. Pro is trying to use text that says people who lie because they are forced aren't bad to claim highly accredited polling sites are wrong. Pro's case is still about maybes, and her text contradicts her claim, excluding moments when lying was forced upon them.

The audience can, in fact, view the sources. They support none of her claims, most of which are made up. I did the control-f on the sources.

Pro has dropped my whole case on Culture. Replacing it, instead, with misread texts to claim that Muslims, as a whole culture of 1.6 billion, have apparently been lying (5).

5) http://tinyurl.com...

Conclusion: While some extremist Muslims have indulged in Terror, like any group, this does not imply that Islam is a Religion of Terror, but that Islam is a religion of people.

I have shown each text Pro offered to be text of self-defense and fighting for the oppressed, not committing terror. Rebuttal I was Pro's strongest case.

Pro has dropped Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.
Pro has dropped Rebuttal IV: Religion vs Culture.

Terror is a cultural issue, not a religious one. Islam is not a Religion of Terror.

Debate Round No. 4
Zarroette

Pro


I’m going to summarise with the argument that won me the debate. I’m going to reiterate it, so that it is clear that I have won. I’d only be repeating myself, in regards to the other arguments, and they are far more moot than this one.





Winning argument: Allah does not stop terrorism in the name of Islam



My opponent, in several attempts, has completely failed to accurately address this argument. This is much to his detriment, as this argument alone wins me the debate. Here is the argument again:



1)Some Muslims commit terror in the name of Islam


2)Allah is omnipotent and omniscient


3)Allah does not stop this terror


4)Therefore, we assume that Allah wants terror in the name of Islam



Let’s have a look at my opponent’s counter-arguments:



“Pro does not believe in Allah, nor do I.”




It is of no relevance what my or my opponent’s beliefs are, in regards to Islam itself. A tenant of Islam is that one has belief in Allah. My opponent’s argument is Ad Hominem, because he is saying that because I don’t believe in Allah’s existence, my argument about Islam is void. My argument about Islam can be legitimate, regardless of my beliefs.




“Then how are we to expect him to stop it (no offense.)”




Again, a tenant of Islam is that you believe in Allah. Since I proved that Allah was omnipotent and omniscient, it follows that:




1) Allah knows about it


2) Allah is capable of stopping it



Therefore, we are to expect Allah has the capability to stop it (if he wants to).




“…for Allah to stop it would contradict free will.”




So what? Is Allah incapable of changing the laws of our universe? No. Why does this refute my argument? This is not an argument involving the resolution; it’s merely stating a fact, which does, in no way, contradict my argument. If Allah were to take away free will, in stopping the terror in his name, so what? Then it would follow that Islam is not a religion of terror, but that hasn’t happened, has it?




“If I kill in the name of my Mother, is she responsible?...”




In my last response, I made it incredibly clear that the difference between the example given, and the example I used (Allah), was that Allah was omnipotent and omniscient. And what does my opponent do? He almost argues the same thing. Again, Allah is omnipotent and omniscient; the mother is not. The mother isn’t capable of changing everything, whereas Allah is. This difference is important, as we can then assume Allah’s intentions, based on his actions. Since he chooses not to stop the terror in his name, we must assume that he wants Islam to be a religion of terror.




“A parent gives their 18 year old child free will, but doesn't want them to misuse it…”




Con perpetually embarrasses himself by using examples that pertain to non-omnipotence and non-omniscience. It should be abundantly obvious how internally defunct these style of arguments are, against mine; he is literally comparing the author of what is possible, to non-omnipotent, non-omniscient humans. This is why Con has straw-manned my arguments.





“…God doesn't stop us from sinning”




My opponent brings his own belief (Christianity) into this debate. This is completely unwarranted, and further demonstrates that my opponent has entirely failed to understand my argument, yet alone represent it properly.





Con has essentially conceded the debate by continually straw-manning this argument. Again, this argument, since it has virtually gone uncontested, wins me the debate. The resolution reads, “Islam is a religion of terror”, and this argument proves that it is.





Other points




My opponent’s poor spelling




Throughout the debate, my opponent makes dozens of spelling mistakes. Whilst this may seem petty, it reflects poorly on Con’s arguments, and for voting, there is a category for spelling and grammar. Seeing that his spelling is lacklustre, at times, I argue that I should be awarded this point, on the basis of my spelling and grammar being far superior. Have a look for yourself, if you don’t believe me.



Keep in mind that I am Australian, and we have slightly different ways of spelling. Here are some quick examples, from my opponent’s work, that relate to both American-English and Australian-English:




- Lets


- it is anxiety and fear. fighting doesn't.


- trangression


- apart


- If less then a few




My opponent should lose conduct for personal insults



In the previous round, my opponent called me a liar. Personal insults should never be tolerated in a debate, and he should lose conduct, for this reason.





Concluding comments



I thank Donald for his challenging arguments; I’ve learnt a fair bit about Islamic texts. I also thank you, as a reader, for reading whatever part of this debate you did.



I urge that everyone votes based on what is said in the debate, and not on personal beliefs. I don’t hate all Muslims, in fact I have no problem with the majority. If you’re a Muslim, understand that my opponent has failed to accurately defend your beliefs. Sure, I may be wrong about your religion, but that doesn’t mean my opponent’s arguments are correct.



I’ll say it for the final time: he failed to properly address an argument that wins me the debate; this wins me the debate.


donald.keller

Con

Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I.

Dropped by Pro.

Rebuttal II: Allah and Women.

Having dropped the whole of this Rebuttal, Pro sticks with the claim that because Allah doesn't stop terror, he must then want it. I have explained the fault in this argument many times before. Pro's argument assume Allah 1) exists, and 2) gave us free will with the intentions that we'd use it wrong. Allah would have given us free will with the intentions of us using it correctly, and hoping no one misused it. But he punishes those who misuse it, sending them to hell. While for a Muslim, the idea that Allah exists is easy to believe, but it's not a very good argument when the person arguing with it doesn't believe in Allah.

The Quran preaches to respect your parent. Allah demands we respect our parents. So he wants us to, but we still disrespect them from time to time, so does he want us to break his commandment as well? The argument makes no since.

Not stopping something from happening =/= Wanting something to happen.

I wouldn't want my child spending $500 on an Xbox One, but I won't stop him (assuming it's his money.) Pro's 'winning argument' just doesn't apply logically. Besides, if we don't believe in Allah, then claiming Allah wants something because he doesn't exist to stop it is being fallacious.

Rebuttal III: Islamic Texts II.

Dropped by Pro.

Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture.

Dropped by Pro.

Rebuttal V: Voting Points.

My spelling is a minor issue. Granting S&G isn't for whomever has the slightly better spelling, as that's completely irrelevant to the debate. S&G only counts if the person's spelling and grammar is bad enough to hurt the voter's ability to read, as a punishment for not taking responsibility for one's writing. Since bad S&G can make arguments hard to judge and interpret, for the reader and the opposition. Pro is only able to bring up 5 examples at of 30,000 characters (a possible 5000 words.)

As for conduct, saying my opponent lied about her sources and statistics isn't poor conduct. Especially when she did in fact lie. Saying someone lied isn't the same as calling them a liar. While it's implied, it's not the same. One is a direct attack against the person, while the other targets the falsehood of the arguments (which is a serious issue that should be brought up). I never attacked Pro with the word liar.

If Pro wants to discuss Conduct, we can review hers in Round 3. I, however, will stay on track. This is a debate about Islam, not a debate about the other person.

Final Defense.

Pro dropped both of my Arguments (Islamic Text II and Culture v. Religion.) Pro also dropped her own Argument (Islamic Text I.) Pro dropped everything in the last Argument remaining in order to discuss how, since Allah doesn't (exist to) stop terrorism, he must then want it. Logic that is highly fallacious and doesn't apply well to almost any instance of the situation happening in real-life.

Pro resorted to trying to win Conduct and S&G, and make the unsupported claim that I never actually tackled her claim. Her best argument was Argument I: Islamic Text I. I have proven how each and every text she listed was cherry-picked and excluded historical and cultural context needed to understand it.

Conclusion: Islam's texts are misinterpreted by Pro, and does not promote terror. As the data in Rebuttal IV: Religion V. Culture shows, the tendency to lean towards terror correlates with location and culture, not religion.

Islam is not a religion of Terror.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
141 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 2 years ago
Poe-vahkiin
Ignorance is not a form of stupidity, as stupidity is a lack of good judgment or maturity, and ignorance is a lack of knowledge pertaining to a certain subject. This makes all humans, to a certain degree, ignorant. However, not all humans are necessarily stupid.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
- Huh! This is a surprise!
Posted by Le.Doctor 3 years ago
Le.Doctor
Really? Are you Sirius? Are you Sirius Black?
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Oh and if you call me that again, without giving reasons as to why, you're getting reported. I'm serious, this time.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Sorry, Doctor, but you have failed to provide any evidence to suggest that I am ignorant. Therefore, your opinion of me is worthless. Now shoo.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Indirectly calling someone ignorant is the same as directly calling them stupid, since ignorance is a type of stupidity. Just because you 'indirectly' called her ignorant doesn't mean you aren't insulting her.
Posted by Le.Doctor 3 years ago
Le.Doctor
Ah but i didnt call her stupid. I called her ignorance of the topic stupid, but i am not disagreeing on whether she is or not. @donald.keller
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Le.Doctor: She will report insults. Not just any comment related to her (I hope). But insulting her, calling her stupid, isn't okay. Regardless of what either of you two said throughout these comments, it needs to stop.
Posted by Le.Doctor 3 years ago
Le.Doctor
So any comments on you will be reported? Well, fine your ignorance on this topic is stupid. Very stupid
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Fine, I'm going to report them if they make another comment about me. Happy?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Conflicting RFDs. Nevermind.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has proven, through her arguments, that Islam is a religion of hatred, violence, and terror. Based on cultural outlook and religious text, we can see this very clearly. Con's denial of hard statistics/facts and his bizarre reinterpretations of the excerpts Pro provided (e.g., interpreting "kill them wherever you find them" as a call for self-defense) is an insult to any rational reader's intelligence. (Oh, Con, there's ONLY a 25% approval rating of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden in Indonesia now? Well, that's quite a redeeming quality.) Overall, this is a clear victory for Pro in my book.
Vote Placed by jwcmcorbin 3 years ago
jwcmcorbin
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Very interesting debate. The problem I was left unanswered by the Pro is what makes a religion a religion of terror. There are very similar words in the and phrases in multiple rebellious texts other then Islam that are seen as "terror like". The Con did the best job in the over rebuttal especially showing the full text in these situations.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - overall good debate, args easily PRO had I scored this.
Vote Placed by jam20636 3 years ago
jam20636
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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: The reason that Con won for me and not Pro was her "winning" argument, which was fatal to her final resolution. Pro argued that "Allah does not stop terrorism in the name of Islam." Let's presume that this is 100% true, Allah had the power to stop terrorism, and failed to do so. This argument does not support the resolution that Islam is a religion of terror. Allah instead could have had other reasons for not stopping terrorism, such as giving free will to Muslims. Pro attempts to take a negative and convert it into an affirmative. It is a fallacy to say that the failure to act equals some affirmative act. Also, all of the passages that Pro quoted reflect Allah affirmatively doing something such as striking "terror" in the hearts of unbelievers. None of the passages said Allah would let terrorism happen. More perplexing, none of this gives strength to the argument, "Islam is a Religion of Terrorism."
Vote Placed by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Throughout the debate my beliefs were influenced by the two opponents in a kind of tug of war. In round 1, I accepted that Islam was indeed a religion of terror made clear by Zarroette. However at the end of the debate, I am back to where I was before, undecided. But in terms of S&G, Zarroette is right because it is not fair to give a tie as Zarroette has written around the same amount as Donald.keller but has made less spelling mistakes and deserves this point. Tie for convincing arguments because as I've said, I am undecided as a result of both of the opponent's persuasion. Anyway, this is a great debate! I love the intensity and the effort you guys put into this. I learned a lot more about Islam now than ever so I really have to thank you both for that. (reliable sources is a tie for reasons similar to Benshapiro)
Vote Placed by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie. Although Con did accuse Pro of being a liar, Pro accused Con of being a coward at the onset of the debate. Though she retracted her accusation in the 2nd round there seemed to me to be no reason for the accusation at all, since no context was given. I'll give spelling and grammar to Pro. Though it seems like a ridiculous thing to argue for she did have better spelling and I see no reason to award her that category.
Vote Placed by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed with con before and after the debate, neither had better conduct, and neither had better S&G but con had more convincing arguments, and Con used more and the most reliable sources.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
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: Con has a vastly superior interpretation of the Quran and the messages conveyed in the cited excerpts. There really isn't that much more to say...Pro drops virtually half of Con's arguments...Vote goes Con.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
Zarroettedonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con. It wasn't conducive to the debate to bring up spelling errors Spelling and grammar: I didn't notice any mistakes from Pro Arguments: Con 1) he proved that verses were taken out of context that spoke actually about fighting in self-defense. Therefore it would be illogical to conclude that terror is endorsed by fighting in the way that Pro suggested. 2) Pro argued a case for the fact that an omnipotent being promotes terror because it exists. The "argument of evil" has been extensively criticized by atheists and skeptics alike but there is no logical contradiction between an omniscient, omni-benevolent being and evil existing if agents truly have free will. Sources: Pro. The figures were not made up. Do a google search of the statistics. Overall, I can't reasonably come to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of terror given a correlation (of statistics of those living in Muslim countries) because it doesn't prove causation. Other things like culture a