The Instigator
Yusuf94
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Islam is a religion of violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,888 times Debate No: 63505
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (141)
Votes (2)

 

Yusuf94

Con

People quote various verses of The Holy Quran which are parts of a whole statement. Taking these verses out of context they manipulate the translation which then makes a complete different sense.
Emilrose

Pro

Accepted.

I will begin with outlining the definition of "Islam" and "violence":

Islam
n
1. (Islam) the religion of Muslims, having the Koran as its sacred scripture andteaching that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet;Mohammedanism
2. (Islam)
a. Muslims collectively and their civilization.
b. the countries where the Muslim religion is predominant.


vi·o·lence
n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.


Now, with these definitions in mind, I will proceed with providing Qu'ranic verses, that involve and/or promote violence. Note that these are direct translations.


(
Qu'ran 2:191-193) "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.)"

In this particular verse, Muhammed and his followers had just reloacted to Mecca. On the contrary to defending themselves from the Meccan population, they were openly commiting offensive warefare in order to drive the Meccans out of their city; which they eventually achieved.

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


This verse is explictly urging followers of Allah to fight for his cause. Without outlining additional context or any valid reason why his followers should do so.

(Qu'ran 4:76) "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah".


Again, here we have a verse openly endorsing fight for the cause of Allah. The implication is that all of those who believe are required to fight and that if they do not, they are simply not true believers.

(Qu'ran 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."

Once more, a verse not only endorsing but commanding violence and the slaying of those who reject the Islamic faith.

(Qu'ran 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.

Here we have a verse that is criticizing Muslims who do not go receive hurt and fight in the cause of Allah. This is all Muslims that essentially practice peace, the impliction is that these Muslims are not worthy of Allah's recognition and that to be a true believer of him, one must strive and fight.

(Qu'ran 5:33)
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

In this verse, the correct response to anyone that makes mischief in the land is that they be murdered or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off or that they should be imprisoned. Thus, you have a verse promoting and applying to the term of violence.

(Qu'ran 8:15) "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.Who so 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."

Another verse that is explictly commanding those who believe to wage war on those who disbelieve and purposely not turn their backs to them, but rather attack and fight them on their basis of their disbelief.

(Qu'ran 8:67) "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land."

So, a prophet should not have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land.

First off, we have a verse advocating prisoners of war, and secondly, slaughter is being outlined and promoted.

(Qu'ran 9:30) "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!".

So, Allah basically must destroy these Jews and Christians based on their individual belief of who the son of Allah (G-d) is.


(Qu'ran 9:88) "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Back to the "striving" and "fighting".

(Qu'ran 9:111) "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

This verse is suggesting that Allah basically likes his "believers" to slay and be slain. Is that not promoting violence? Here we have a "holy book" that is openly encouraging its followers to go and kill and be killed themselves. Which in modern terms, alludes to the sense of "martyrdom" is is currently practiced among Islamic terroist orgainzations and the fact many of them themselves are prepared to not only kill others, but be killed for the "cause" that they think they have.


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

A verse stating to followers that any unbelievers that are near to you are to be fought against.

(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."

A verse not only advocating violence, but violence and intolerance against a religious minority. It is encouraging Muslims to believe that they compelled to fight the Jews, and that somehow; a stone can speak.


(Bukhari 52:65) The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause.

As with previous verse, the "prophet" Muhammed is endorsing fight in Allah's word, and in his cause. Additionally, he is stating that those who do fight for Allah should be superior.


(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"

In this verse, it states that the messenger of Allah is commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no G-d Allah, and that Muhammed is the messenger of Allah. So anyone who does not testify this, will be continued to be fought against.

(Hisham 484) “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Another verse advocating slaughter and collecting captives. Even stating that Allah, desires killing to manifest the religion of Islam.


I'd include more verse, but it seems I've ran out of characters. In round two I will be covering the external aspects of Islam being a religion of violence.

(1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

(2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
Yusuf94

Con

I will start my argument by pointing out the flaws in the definition of Islam given by my opponent. Islam dates back to the age of Adam and its message has been conveyed to man by God's prophets and messengers, including Abrahim, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
The correct meaning of Islām is "submission to God". Islam is derived from the Arabic root word "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.
Sources Verifying my definition, "F2;Islām(الإسلام) The Arabic root word for Islam means submission, obedience, peace, and purity."
Check out the word 'Islam' on page(http://en.wikipedia.org...).
I can justify my argument by using my opponent's source too. "Arabic 'islam, submission, from 'aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac 'aslem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of slem, to be complete; see slm in Semitic roots." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Before moving further with my rebuttals, I will make this (mis)understanding of Islam more obvious by stating a few facts about Quran.
To understand The Holy Quran you need to know a fact about it that it is poetic and not aphoristic. If you know about aphorism then you must know that any statement rings bell even without it's actual source. Example of aphoristic writers are Oscar Wilde, Franz Kafka etc. Here my opponent stated verses which are not complete and are out of context. And the interpretations of the verses that my opponent gave are her own. Therefore we have many Muslim scholars to interpret the correct meaning of Quran in order to properly understand it. Among them the best interpretations are considered to be of Abdullah Yususf Ali.

Due to Limitations of characters I will be posting mostly only interpretations.

Verses(2:191) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
Meaning of the word Al-Fitnah(verse 191): Fitna comes from an Arabic word which means to seduce, tempt or lure away. In modern usage, it is used to describe forces that cause controversy fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord with in the community. Fitna just like jihad, is another misinterpreted word. When it is said, "fight to eradicate kufr/shirk" it means eliminate disbelief and everything unlawful and innovated and not to kill.
The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion and so they sent their army to root out Islam. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:
{And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.} (Al-Baqarah 2:190)
This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting but to defend themselves against aggressors. But we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live without fear of molestation and invasion so that we can live in peace so that justice is done. Remember God does not command any one to start fighting, rather He permits people to fight in self defence or for the defence of those who are attacked unjustly.

The first mistake is misunderstanding of the the word "Jihad". Combat is ordained for Muslims in order to defend themselves and their rights, as well as the rights of others. The obligation to defend one"s rights, and to establish justice is the meaning of Jihad. It is most certainly a duty of all human beings to help each other from oppression and injustice.
Now, Verse(2:244) is informing the believers not to transgress limits because they should know that "God hears and knows all". So a true Muslim is God-conscious when defending the rights of others and does not overstep his limits in applying justice.

Verse(4:75) "And what is wrong with you that you do not engage in combat for the sake of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."
...and then Allah says in verse(4:76) "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah".
I think once you read this one it's understood why Allah asks us to fight. He asks us to fight off injustice.

This verse has been misquoted like the previous verse, out of context. Here is the full passage:
Verse(4:88-91) "Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them."
So in the same manner as the first verse, this verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God.

Verse(4:95) Having defined Jihad previously, a Jihadi is someone who strives to uphold justice, perhaps risking his life in the process. So what do these verses say? They are elevating the status of those who are brave to stand up for truth and justice in the face of oppression. The verses elevate their status over that of those who are cowardly, unless they have a disability, which prevents them from doing so. In these verses either. Moreover, the verse supports the interpretation of Jihad as any struggle for the sake of God because it has mentioned those who perform Jihad with their wealth by donating it for a good cause.

One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive).
Verse(5:32-34) "If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole mankind: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole mankind. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
Please have a common sense to understand the context in which the term mischief is used here.

For Verse(8:15) I will state a verse from the same Chapter which is chapter 8.
Verse(8:61) "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things)."
It shows how ignorant one can be by judging without weighing.

Verse(9:30) Now, Jews and Christians and Muslims they all believe in Monotheism. If one is setting rivals then they are not believing in monotheism, they are included in idolators. The Quran, however, does not assert that all the Jews were unanimous in declaring Ezra as the son of God. What it intends to say is that the perversion in the articles of faith of the Jews concerning Allah had degenerated to such an extent that there were some amongst them who considered Ezra as the son of God. So If you don"t believe in Allah(God) and his monotheism then you should have no problem with this deity casting terror into your heart, am I right? Again, nowhere is it ordering Muslims to do anything. It"s irrelevant to this discussion.

Due to limitations of words, I will give the correct interpretation of Verse(9:123), Verse(8:67), Verse(9:88) and Verse(9:111) in next round.

And coming back to the topic again, now you are stating Hadiths which are words of muslim leaders and not The Holy Quran or Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh). Please don't jump off the topic. Topic is related to Islam and it's way of life, teachings which are given in The Holy Quran, so briniging up Hadith is irrelevant.
Emilrose

Pro

Rebuttals

"I will start my argument by pointing out the flaws in the definition of Islam given by my opponent".

"Pro" should note that my definition is an actual dictionary definition, intended to provide a brief understanding of what Islam is. Pro is unable to point out flaws within this definition because (1.) It is not my own and (2.) It is clearly sourced.

Definitions are not there to define the history of said words, but rather to describe what these said words are. The purpose of providing definintions is to inform to the viewer of the debate what exactly it is you're discussing.

Additionally, just because the Arabic origins of the word Islam derive from words translating as submission, peace and to surrender; it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history. They are just mere translations.

Moreover, I would like to highlight that as pro you have failed to outline an opening argument and explain why you think Islam is not a religion of violence. Instead, you have proceeded straight to rebuttals which thus means you have not presented a convincing counter-argument of your own.

As for your points about the "poeticism" of Islam; they are largely irrelevant to the debate. The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent. More to the point, they are not out of context. These were verses that are openly promoting violence; including "fight" or "war" against non-believers, Jews, Christians, and as previously referenced with Mecca; residents of cities/towns that Muhammed and his followers visited and later gained control over.

"The context of this verse was when Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence".

When making such striking re-interpretations I would advise that pro support his claims with clearly defined historical evidence. On the contrary to rebutting my selected verse, you have attached to own opinion and added new meaning.

The following flaws are:

(1.) Muhammed and his followers were not being attacked (in this context) causing them to fight for their very existence.

(2.) The fight launched upon the inhabitants of Mecca was offensive warefare, neither Muhhamed or his followers were under any attack from their Meccan adversaries.

(3.) The aim of Muhhamed was to eliminate the Meccan residence. enforce Islam, and gain control over the city of Mecca. In fact, the Qu'ran itself and other sources of Islamic scripture and evidence confirm this. Never is it suggested that Muhammed and his followers are being persecuted, it strongly indicates that Muhammed launched warfre upon others. Primarily on the basis of his belief in Allah and his desire for the Muslim religion to expand. The impression one receives is that Muhammed was indeed an efficient military leader, changing the landscape of Arabic warefare forever.

First off Muhammed sent his men out to raid Meccan caravans, before purposely this then lead to Muhammed and his army attackin further places within Mecca and fighting with the Meccan army; who were soley acting on defense for the city. Islam was in fact built on Muhammed and fellow Muslim conquering towns and cities, with the plan of overtaking and violently defeating the population into submission. This is how precisely how Islam formed its prominence throughout the Middle East.

Another aspect to the Muhammed's violence (which I previously allluded to) is the fact he attacked and then cleansed three Jewish tribes on the basis of them refusing to convert to Islam and accept him as their prophet. Does this count as violence? It alsmost certainly does. Once more, it offers proof that Islam was founded and further expanded by violence.

The Hadith

As you have specified in your resolution that this debate is about Islam, your comments about the Hadith not being relevant are misplaced. If your title stated: The Q'uran is violent or (if you're taking pro); The Qu'ran is not violent, then your point would be verified. But, as you state: Islam, you are inviting reference on the entire religion of Islam. As pro you cannot simply select which aspects of Islam you want to be included and not.

The Hadith assumes a very prominent role within Islam. For starters, it is considered important religious (or holy) text, and it covers significant details of Muhammed's life and the beginnings of Islam, and has invarialy shaped Islamic law; as well as being a fundamental source of inspiration for Islamic religious figures and leaders.

Most importantly, it is again explictly violent in its teachings for Muslim followers.

There is one particular verse within (Bukhari 46:717) that describes the violent fate of an Arab tribe named Banu Mustaliq that were attacked by Muhammed:

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives".

Here we have a tribe being attacked, without reason or valid justification. It was without warning while they were simply watering their cattle , their fighting men were killed, and their women and children were taken as captives.

Is taking women and children in any way justified? And does this act of attacking and killing men of a tribe not fit in with the definition of "violence"? Again, it absolutely does. There is no added context within this verse that can offer any kind of counter-argument or refute the example of violence.

Sexual abuse and rape was also practiced by Muhammed and his men. Example:(Sahih Muslim 3371), this verse states that Muhammed explictly gave his permission for his men to rape female captives, after their men had been slaughtered.

Rape, as well as murder, counts as violent act and a violent crime.

In addition to attacking on the basic of conversion and power, Muhammed also attacked for revenge. One such example is the tribe of Lihyan. The account of (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 718) states that were clearly unprepared and were thus forced to flee to the hills in order to save themselves. This somewhat resembles what Islamic terroist group Islamic State recently did to the Yazidi tribe of Iraq, they attacked their villages and their homes, gave the opition of conversion or death, and then forced them to flee to Sinjar mountain. Where a number of them died of deyhydration and exhaustionn. In essence this is just a modern-day version of what Muhammed himself enforced on people.

Back the Hadith, Muhammed also attacked the inhabitants of Taif, because of their rejection of him. (Ibn/Hisham 280/872).

Another such example is when Muhammed made a raid on Tabuk, which was his second incursion into the Christian terriotory of Syria. Muhammed forced the Christian population to pay him him tribute after he ambushed and killed their fellow local residents in order to assert his authourity and again, expand Islam and increase its power.

Here is an passage from (Ibn/Hisham 959) that refers to another miliatry assault asserted on the Arab tribe the Banu al-Harith:

"Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."

So basically, this tribe presented with the choice of conversion or death. They do not convert, they get the latter.

Referencing the Qu'ran once again, the beginning part of the 9th Sura (9:5) it also shows further proof of attacks made against non-Muslim tribes. This time, it was the Pagans.

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them".

If these Pagans make the individual and rightful choice not to convert, they are (as with other groups) to be slain and made war against.


In (9:29) Jews and Christians are forced to pay financial compense for simply being Jews and Christians, and not Muslims. If they do not pay, the result is that they be killed.

There's further verse in the Hadith (Ishaq/Hisham 757) referencing the Jews of Khaybar and how they were also threatened by Muhammed.

"We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece".

It seems that in this verse Muhammed's repuation of violence is actually proceeding him. These Jewish residents are forced to flee and have their property ceased by Muhammed.


In (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764) it goes on to state that Muhammed then tortured the community treasurer, had him killed, and took his widow as his new wife. In (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758) he trades two other women as slaves.

It seems I have ran out of characters once again, but in round three I will further reference to the terroistic foundation of Islam and will include some of the modern-day aspects to it.

(1.) http://islammonitor.org...

(2.) http://www.answering-islam.org...

(3.) http://muhammadanism.com...

(4.) http://www.bibleprobe.com...

(5.)
http://www.answering-islam.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Yusuf94

Con

Con is not able to justify the denial of the meaning of Islam I mentioned, which is "Submission to God", "Peace".
(a) In previous round I clearly stated the definition of "Islam" mentioned in the source given by the Con. Which to her is of least importance to mention along with other definitions, the original Arabic meaning of an Arabic term. What kind of logic is that?
(b) Con stated "The purpose of providing definitions is to inform to the viewer of the debate what exactly it is you're discussing.". Here I agree with Con, so my intention to use the word "flaw" was to point out the flaw in not describing the complete original Arabic meaning of the word "Islam". That is why I stated "Islam dates back to the age of Adam and its message has been conveyed to man by God's prophets and messengers, including Abrahim, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad." in order to make the viewers familiar with concept of Islam.
(c) Con stated "Additionally, just because the Arabic origins of the word Islam derive from words translating as submission, peace and to surrender; it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history.". As you can make out from point (b) mentioned above. Con is contradicting her own statemnets. Firstly she is giving importance to the definitions and then when original Arabic root definitions do not favor her, she denies by stating "They are just mere translations.".

Whereas the Debate is whether "Islam is a religion of violence" or not. Con stated "it does not mean that these are things entailed within the religion of Islam or practiced throughout its history.". Whether Islam is practiced by Muslims or not is a question which has no relevance in contrast with the topic. Con failed again to justify her statement.

My statement "People quote various verses of The Holy Quran which are parts of a whole statement. Taking these verses out of context they manipulate the translation which then makes a complete different sense." is sufficient as an opening argument. Whereas it was Con who failed to bring up enough evidence in round 2 to produce a logical counter-argument. Instead Con moved further with her debate quoting verses repeatedly which were out of context and gave her own interpretations on them.

Con stated "As for your points about the "poeticism" of Islam; they are largely irrelevant to the debate" if viewers are familiar with my argument, they will know my opening argument itself is based on the context of The Holy Quran. If one is familiar with the concept of poetry he/she will understand that it's not that simple to understand the meaning of different lines of poetry by quoting them out of the context.
For example "Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost. In this poem Robert Frost describes the end of the world scientifically and emotionally, associating passionate "desire" with "fire" and "hatred" with "ice". If I simply quote these lines "From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire." without understanding the context in which it's said all I can tell from what it makes sense is that Frost is saying he knows the taste of "desire" and from which he can tell that the whole world will prefer "fire". I guess somehow even that is violent isn't it? But he is actually trying to show and somewhat warn humans of their own nature.
Poetry Source(http://www.poemhunter.com...)

Now keeping this concept in mind one cannot simply deny the fact that Quran is poetic. "The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent" Con fails to provide any evidence on her statement.
"The language of the Quran has been described as "rhymed prose" as it partakes of both poetry and prose, however, this description runs the risk of compromising the rhythmic quality of Quranic language, which is certainly more poetic in some parts and more prose-like in others."
Confirmation Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Other Source Confirming Quran is Poetic(http://www.theinimitablequran.com...)
These sources give clear evidences that Quran is poetic and not aphoristic merely leaving the fluke accusation of being "violent". Hence proving accusations of violence on Islam and it's scripture The Holy Quran merely a misunderstanding, based on the evidences(Quran's Verses) that Con has provided.

Con is asking for Official historical evidences. Con disagrees with statement "The context of this verse was when Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence".
"In April 626 Muhammad raised a force of 300 men and 10 horses to meet the Quraysh army of 1,000 at Badr for the second time. Although no fighting occurred, the coastal tribes were impressed with Muslim power. Muhammad also tried, with limited success, to break up many alliances against the Muslim expansion. Nevertheless, he was unable to prevent the Meccan one" Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
This source clearly mentions of Muslims being underdogs. They were struggling for their survival.

"The largely outnumbered defenders of Medina, mainly Muslims led by Islamic prophet Muhammad, dug a trench, which together with Medina's natural fortifications, rendered the confederate cavalry (consisting of horses and camels) useless, locking the two sides in a stalemate. Hoping to make several attacks at once, the confederates persuaded the Medina-allied Banu Qurayza to attack the city from the south. However, Muhammad's diplomacy derailed the negotiations, and broke up the confederacy against him. The well-organized defenders, the sinking of confederate morale, and poor weather conditions caused the siege to end in a fiasco.
I plead viewers to read the article. Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
This source confirms that muslims were outnumbered while they were NOT attacking BUT were defending Medina. While jewish tribe Banu-Qurayza violated the treaty, to live and practice their religion peacefully under Islamic rule they were asked to fight to defend Medina.

"In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza violated a treaty with the Islamic prophet Muhammad by allying with the attacking tribes , aiming to attack Muslims from behind while the other attackers attack from the front . Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Banu Qurayza were forced to surrender and the men were beheaded, while all the women and children were taken captive and enslaved" I plead viewers to read article for more information. Source: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
This source confirms that Qurayza violated the treaty with Islamic Prophet Muhammad by allying with attacking tribes while they should have defended it. Read this part carefully "Aiming to attack Muslims from behind while other attackers attack from the front".

These source proves that Con's accusations such as "(1.) Muhammed and his followers were not being attacked (in this context) causing them to fight for their very existence."
"(2.) The fight launched upon the inhabitants of Mecca was offensive warefare, neither Muhhamed or his followers were under any attack from their Meccan adversaries."
"(3.) The aim of Muhhamed was to eliminate the Meccan residence. enforce Islam, and gain control over the city of Mecca. In fact, the Qu'ran itself and other sources of Islamic scripture and evidence confirm this.[......]."
..are merely fluke without any official sources or evidences supporting Con's arguments.
Simmilarly Con's rest of the arguments and accusations are fluke without any proper evidences.

Con states "As you have specified in your resolution that this debate is about Islam, your comments about the Hadith not being relevant are misplaced. If your title stated: The Q'uran is violent or (if you're taking pro); The Qu'ran is not violent, then your point would be verified. But, as you state: Islam, you are inviting reference on the entire religion of Islam. As pro you cannot simply select which aspects of Islam you want to be included and not.".
Theories of Islam are from Quran, it's the word of Allah and Law of Islam. ONLY through Quran Islam was revealed to Muslims. If that is the case, then Con is contradicting her complete argument and her debate itself because Con's whole argument in round 2 is based on "Violent" verses of Quran. And again in round 3 she stated "The provided verses are neither poetic or aphoristic, rather they are explictly violent". Con is playing by double standards here.

As far as my resolution is concerned and aspects of Islam are considered? Then according to Islam and my argument, Bible and Torah are also Islamic scriptures, they are verses of God. Are they "Violent" too?
"the Tawrat (Torah) given to Musa (Moses), the Zabur (Psalms) given to Daud (David) and the Injil (Gospel) given to Isa (Jesus). Together, the Qur'an, these books and the now-unknown Suhuf Ibrahim ("Scrolls of Abraham") constitute Islam's scripture." Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
So considering your statemnet should I bring up these topics too?
As I pleaded Con earlier to stick to the Topic. She contradicted her statements and tried to change the topic. My reason to stick to the verses of Quran is because Quran is Word of God, it's the Law of Islam. So whether muslims practice it or what Hadiths has to comment on it is irrelevant. Sunnih World follows Hadiths strongly, what about Shias, what about Ahle Quran? Ahle Quran or Quranism or Quran alone Islam is an Islamic view that holds the Qur'an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Source(http://en.wikipedia.org...). These things you cannot simply discuss with such ease and knowledge, one needs to understand all the aspects of differents sections. So I'll say again, Con is going off the top.
Emilrose

Pro

I should state that it's actually you that's taking the "Con" side. I am "Pro".

Anyway, nowhere I have outlined a denial of the Arabic meaning of the word "Islam". The statement was that just because the word may derive from the term "peace" and so forth, it does not conclude that the actual entirety and practice of Islam does result in "peace". As for "submission to G-d", once more that does not necessarily suggest that the religion of Islam is not. "Submission to G-d" can and has constituted many violent religious and/or political movements throughout history. For example, the perpetrators of the Crusadeds believed they were submitting to G-d.

It seems it's rather you that's ventured off-topic. The resolution states: the religion of Islam is violent (with you taking "Con"), not "the meaning of the word Islam is peace". We are discussing the religion, not the Arabic language itself.

Additional Rebuttals

"Whether Islam is practiced by Muslims or not is a question which has no relevance in contrast with the topic. Con failed again to justify her statement."

Actually, my retort was completely relevant. The practice of Islam is important as this debate is about Islam. I justfied my statement by again providing more verse from the Qur'an that includes and encourages violence.

"My statement "People quote various verses of The Holy Quran which are parts of a whole statement. Taking these verses out of context they manipulate the translation which then makes a complete different sense." is sufficient as an opening argument."

If Pro had any experience with written debating he would have knowledge of the fact that an opening argument requires more thantwo sentences. It is your own argument that shapes the focus of your debate and confirms whether you have outlined a convincing structure. Instead of delving into any positive aspects of Islam and offering evidence on it not being a religion of violence, Pro proceeded straight to rebuttals and neglected all opportunies to compose a real argument of his own. One that specifically addressed Islam not being violent or endorsing violence. A debate consisits of both individual arguments and then later rebuttals.

"Whereas it was Con who failed to bring up enough evidence in round 2 to produce a logical counter-argument. Instead Con moved further with her debate quoting verses repeatedly which were out of context and gave her own interpretations on them."

In round two of my argument I addressed and responded to rebuttals and then included further verse from the Qur'an. These were all verse that included violence. My additional statements were not interpretations but rather explanation of what the verses were stating. What I stated was in fact translated words from the Qur'an. Additionally, they were not out of context. The precise context was that Muhammed was travelling around different parts of the Middle East and conquering towns/villages. Throughout the Hadith there is description of this; with the same verse that I used.

Your example of the poem "Fire and Ice" by Robert Frost is again irrelevant to the debate.

"In this poem Robert Frost describes the end of the world scientifically and emotionally, associating passionate "desire" with "fire" and "hatred" with "ice". If I simply quote these lines "From what I've tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire." without understanding the context in which it's said all I can tell from what it makes sense is that Frost is saying he knows the taste of "desire" and from which he can tell that the whole world will prefer "fire"."

(1.) This is poem is an artistic work of fiction. Do you not consider the Qur'an to be real?

(2.) The Qur'an is considered a "holy book", therefore it is unrelated to other forms of literature.

(3.) The verses that I used are describing actual events that took place in reality. Muhammed did conquer areas, and he did attack the residents and tribes of these said areas.

(4.) The context of the selected Fire and Ice verse is still not akin to the context of the Qur'anic verse I outlined. Described within the verse was the attacking of Arab, Jewish, Christian, and Pagan groups. As well as intolerance being expressed towards non-believers and the encouragement of fight and war.

"This source confirms that muslims were outnumbered while they were NOT attacking BUT were defending Medina. While jewish tribe Banu-Qurayza violated the treaty, to live and practice their religion peacefully under Islamic rule they were asked to fight to defend Medina."


Here we have another Wikipedia article on Banu Qurazya that entirely contradicts your statement. It is referred to as the "Invasion of Banu Qurazya":

"The Islamic prophet Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza for 25 days until they surrendered.[1] One of Muhammad's companions decided that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment".

(1.) http://en.wikipedia.org...

It clearly states that Muhammed besieged Banu Qurazya for a number of 25 days until they surrendered. It was then decided that the men be killed, property be divided, and the women and children taken as captives.

Which is precisely what I alluded to in round two.

As it's important for other sources of information to be included. I will refer to a direct Ibn/Hashiq verse:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you neverunderstand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them."

The "apostle" certainly was digging trenches here for self-defense. The verse explictly describes how the tribes heads were struck off and and how they were made an end to. So essentially, all men (600 to 900) were killed.


Again, that is absolutely constitutes "violence" and provides further information on exactly how Islam was founded.

As for your further statements:

"As far as my resolution is concerned and aspects of Islam are considered? Then according to Islam and my argument, Bible and Torah are also Islamic scriptures, they are verses of God. Are they "Violent" too?"



The the Torah and the Bible are not Islamic scriptures. (1.) The Torah belongs to the Jewish faith and was composed by Jews. (2.) The Bible belongs to the Christian faith and again, was composed by Jews bar one Greek man who added to the B'rit Hadasha (New Testament).


Both faiths reject the Qur'an, so their individial holy books can in no way be considered 'Islamic". Islam was the final of all three religions to be established.

As to whether Jewish or Christian scriptures are violent or not; irrelevant to the debate.


I will once more outline the Hadith is widely accepted as important text within Islam, so it is absolutely relevant to the topic.

An example of this significance is outlined here by Professor Shaul Hameed:

"The two fundamental sources of Islam are the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). By Sunnah, we mean the actions, sayings and silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Prophet."

He goes on to state;


"The Qur'an is the message, while the Hadith is the verbal translation of the message into pragmatic terms, as exemplified by the Prophet. While the Qur'an is the metaphysical basis of the Sunnah, the Sunnah is the practical demonstration of the precepts laid down in the Qur'an."

"It is therefore obligatory that we look up to the Prophet's morals and exemplary character and carry them out in our lives. We can never do so without studying Hadith."

So, the Hadith is not only an examination of the past of Muhammed but it also a source of moral inspiration for Muslims.

Mistreatment of women is assumes prominence within Muslim holy texts and thoughout Islam's history. In relation to modern aspects of the religion, research shows that in countries such as Sweden (where there is a high Muslim population) Muslim men are found to be overrepresented in statistics. As many as 77% Muslim men were found to be responsible of commiting rape. This increase is said to e directly related to advanced Muslim immigration into the country.
Predominatly Muslim countries have also been shown to have the highest numer of female mutiliation cases, which again; constitutes "violence" and is considered a crime in most countries. In Iraq, the cases for sexual and domestic abuse against women was at 77%.



Now to "honour violence", an estimated 200 too 300 honour killings are committed in Syria each year. In fact, half of the murder cases within Syria are said to to be attributed to this form of violence.

Due to character length, I cannot expound on these next inclusions of Islamic violence in great detail but I will make referrence:

Concerning Muslim terroism, one poll found that around 44% of Nigerian Muslims believed that suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "somewhat" justified. In Syria, the Christian community has also faced a series of kidnappings and brutal murders.





(1.) http://www.onislam.net...
(2.) http://europenews.dk...

(3.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


Debate Round No. 3
141 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
No problem....
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Ok! From the outset it's fairly obvious that there is verse in the OT that appears violent--this is why additional context needs to be studied. For example, the seemingly "violent" verses surrounding the Canaanite tribes and the command by G-d to "destroy" them all have added explanation; precisely as you claim with Muhammed and the Qur'an.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
well any time you ready.. just say.... and if you think the Quran promoting violence you should admit the bible also promoting violence in a huge scale that put the Quran to shame...if i right or wrong we will see it in the debate.. so if you prove the Quran really promotes violence i also need to admit so we are in the same quagmire xD bhaslakha :D
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
What was that?
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Hm, if we could meet an agreeable resolution then yes. After reading additional context from the Qur'an I'm fairly assured that verses promoting violence are still lacking in valid explanation and are fairly *explicit* in meaning.

Currently I'm engaged in two debates so when would you wanna do it?
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
hurts****** to see...
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
Emilrose wanna debate Quran and Bible Approach to Peace & Violence? its really to see debate like that saying things about the prophet may peace be upon him anything like lies, out of context and nonsense. so you want to see what Quran and Bible say about peace and violence?
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
@yoshidino

I agree, there's much evidence (as outlined in my arguments) of intolerance of Jews in Islamic holy scripture but even regardless of that one only has to assess the history of violence and cases of current hatred directed towards Israel; never has actually been about land. The only reason Israel has been continuously waged war against is because of refusal to accept Jews in a *Jewish* state.

All of this can be derived back to Islamic teaching of Jews and the violent conduct of Muhamned.

Funny--I remember thinking that! Two languages combined that's actually what they're saying.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I think just looking at what the Muslims are doing in the Middle east against us (Israel) and whoever else they hate is proof enough to tell whether or not they hold a faith of hatred and violence. And being a part of the Khumas ("violence" in Hebrew) certainly doesn't help their case.
And a kinda funny fact: You know the Islamic phrase "Allah hu akbar?"
In Hebrew, that means "Allah is a mouse"
Posted by abbas786 2 years ago
abbas786
pro keeps using verses out of context.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
Yusuf94EmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro as con attempted to redefine the definition (moving the goalpost). Arguments to con; pro had many good verses in referral to Islam's violent nature but con successfully debunked them as mistranslations, and even showed that the Qu'ran in its nature is poetic (unlike Genesis). Con's argumentation were badly formatted, but they did good to debunk many of pro's "misunderstandings" Good debate, but victory goes to con.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Yusuf94EmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both did a very good job at debating, however the resolution was "Islam is a religion of violence." If Con cites Muslim scholars to support his beliefs then he agrees that the Koran is not the only basis for it's religion as Con stated and i have read: Muslims are allowed to add their own interpretations to the Koran so long as it doesn't conflict with the most fundamental core beliefs of Islam. Pro provides ample evidence for Islam being a religion of peace through conquest of the unbelievers last round despite Con's proofs of Muslims acting in self defense. Since Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, we are left to assume that he is Allah's representative.