The Instigator
Con (against)
43 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
41 Points

Islam is a ruthless and barbaric religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,444 times Debate No: 937
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (26)




First of all, I would like to thank Mrpresident because he said he wanted to debate me on Islam. You said you will feel honored if I challenge you on a debate on Islam. My answer would be: "You're a better debater than I am, I read your debate George Bush Is a good president, and you explained your points really well, and you were really informative and knowledgeable about your topic more than I was.

Anyways, lets get to the topic:

"I won't make arguments until the pro makes some arguments first about Islam being a merciless and bad religon."


The pleasure is all mine. I read your argument about the implmentation of Sharia in the US. Your usage of Qur'anic verses to support your theory was exceptional, to say the least.

Anyway, to the argument. Though you made excellent points, Sharia is not an istantaneous thing. It takes time to implement, usually through reversion or the oppostion being killed off. Islamic history shows that the latter is the normal case, and the Qur'an shows that it is the preferable method.

Now, many would seem to think that just because Islam is a religion, it is just as moral and nonviolent in it's teachings as any other. However, I have to disagree. I bought a Qur'an maybe half a year ago, and have since read it three times. I wanted to believe that the terrorists had simply hijacked a religion for their own evil ends. I read the Koran hoping to find as many verses of peace and love as I could. Instead, I was bombarded by the hatred and intolerance embedded in the Koran, appalled by the blatant violence it spewed. Consider these verses:

9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

9:14 "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace.."

9:20 "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

9:38-39 "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

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

4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.

8:12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

2:191-193 "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."

8:39 "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
See above.

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"

2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

47:4 "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
This passage is the basis for the beheading tactic common amongst Islamic terrorists.

NOTE: For convenience purposes, most of the verses were found on and I copied and pasted to save time. All of these verse were checked in my Qur'an. All the authors write the Koran with subtle differences, but all are essentally the same.

So, are these the peaceful verses that Islam conveys to us infidels? Why is Islam not content to live in peace with us, as were are of them? I find it difficult to believe that these verses are metaphors or any such, due to the fact that the Koran is always read literally, unlike the Bible, which is just as much poetry and metaphors as a religious text. But, this is about Islam, not Christianity.

If you had a map of the entire Islamic world, and stuck your finger on the map anywhere, you would find that none of these countries have significant minorities of any religion, excepting Lebanon, Egypt, and Albania. Why is this? Well, if we believe the Koran's teachings, infidels are only allowed to worship only if they pay the jizya, the religious tax. History shows the amount of poverty heaped upon the infidel subjects of the Islamic caliphate, and it also shows that most of them either died or converted, but a few stayed and a few fled for Christian lands. So, it is fairly unsurprising that there are no religious minorities in most Muslim countries.

Furthermore, Islam's treasury ran off of it's conquered populations, resulting in what was the glory of the Islamic world. The great flowering of science in the Islamic world was mainly due to the presence of people of other religions. The Dome of the Rock in Jreusalem was built by Byzantine architects. The first medical clinic was opened by a Belgian, because Islam prohibits autopsys necessary for medical science. Arabic numerals were invented in Hindu India, although under the yoke of the Islamic calipahte. Muslims claim to have invented the astrolabe, but it was invented by the Greeks nearly 800 years before Islam. They improved upon algebra, but did not invent it. They did do well in preserving the works of Plato and Aristotle, but the Byzantines and the Catholic Church were already doing a fine job at it already, as the Byzantines were mainly Greeks themselves, and the Catholic Church was busy trying to preserve what pieces of the glory of Rome they could after the fall of the Empire. You can correllate the decline of the caliphate with the shortage of conquered infidels. As the West began to surpass the Muslims, Islam ran out of infidels they could easily sujugate and excat tribute from. From there, Islam coasted, then declined, the final collapse coming after it's defeat in World War One. More books are translated to Spanish than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. This suggests, at best, a very closed society. Among those they do translate: Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This suggests that Islam is not the Religion of Peace, nor the great flowering scientific achievement it's said to be.
Debate Round No. 1


Brother, All of the verses that you have quoted I will get to them in a second but let me tell you this much:
Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam', which means peace. It also means submitting one's will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one's will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice

And Now To Your Hatred Arguments:
A few selected verses from the Qur'an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

1. Verse from Surah Taubah
The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them."
[Al-Qur'an 9:5]

2. Context of verse is during battlefield
Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

"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 practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most merciful."
[Al-Qur'an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.

3. Example of war between America and Vietnam
We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle

Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

5. Shourie jumps from verse 5 to verse 7
Arun Shourie is one of the staunchest critics of Islam in India. He quotes the same verse, Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 in his book ‘The World of Fatwahs', on page 572. After quoting verse 5 he jumps to verse 7 of Surah Taubah. Any sensible person will realise that he has skipped verse 6.

6. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer
Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur'an 9:6]

The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world

I Completely Agree Over The Comment Over The Islamic Shariah
NOTE: But remember it was just a debate, I was just trying to be creative and see what other people say


The root word for Islam is "al-Silm," which means "submission" or "surrender." There is no controversy about this among Islamic scholars. Besides peace through submission to Allah is no peace at all considering what must happen for there to be peace. There is no peace until all religion is for Allah. Even if Islam meant "peace", it would still be an oxymoron.

Yes, there are times when you must fight because your very survival is threatened. Christianity even allows this. However, peace must be kept without the sort of brutality that stiffens one's resolve. Criminals in America do not have their hands cut off because that was decided to be too severe in comparison to the crim committed. Every action requires an appropriate response. Murderers spend life in prison or recieve the death penalty. Thieves spend time in jail. There are exceptions to every rule, and I do not say that I support this. For me, a murderer should be automatically given a death sentence unless it was involuntary or in self defense. Otherwise, they have earned their own death. But is losing a hand appropriate for theft. If a man steals some food, he is still a thief, but is losing his hand comparative to his crime? I think not. Islam is overly violent in it's maintainance of public order, somewhat like a totalitarian dictatorship.

As for fighting oppression, that is a matter of perspective. For some Muslims, living amongst infidels is oppression. For some, living in an infidel country. Oppression is not a defintion that can be stretched to meet the wants of a religion for nay reason. No where in the world is Islam truly inder any oppression. Palestine isn't a very good example, either, because they exist in the state they are in because they always rejected Israel's demands for a peace process. Yasser Arafat made no reservations about his contempt for Israel and he openly mocked the idea of a peace process. That's because the Palestinians don't want to live in peace with Israel. They want Israel gone. They want the Jews gone. No peace until there is Palestine, and Palestine only.

I understand the context of 9:5. Whether it is fault of the Muslims or the pagans, it makes no difference now. Muhammed and his men slaughtered them all 14 centuries ago. What matters now is that this verse is used as a marching order, the Verse of the Sword, as they call it. Osama bin Laden uses it, as do many other terrorists. What matters is that they do not see it as a matter between Muhammed and the pagans, but between Muhammed and the 'pagans' of today. And of course Islam accepts anyone who willfully converts to their religion. Who wouldn't? Offering them peace because they converted isn't uncommon. And whether the verse was battle motivation or a standing order, again, terrorists still use it as the latter, and it would be different if there were just one of these. The Koran blatantly states that kaffirs are not to be trusted and are to be fought because we are kaffirs, because we simply exist in the same world as you do, not because we offered you insult or attacked you. That is, unless you count rejecting your religion in favor of our own an insult. Muhammed led his men against the Jewish tribes of upper Arabia and the Byzantine Chrsitians north of them. For what reason? Did the Byzantines kill a relative of his? No. Jews are especially scolded by the Islamic holy book, saying that they are kin to monkeys and pigs, something not fully human and worthy of respect. Muhammed was simply following the commandments of his own holy book. They simply refused to covert to his religion.

By the way, when a general captures men in battle not only does he offer them asylum, they are taken to a safe place where they cannot harm anyone else. We call them POW camps. They get food, shelter, security, everything they need, so long as they keep quiet and realize that they are defeated men. They are no longer soldiers, now disarmed prisoners. Sure, there's the danger of being hit by a shell or being bombed, but that's different. Muhammed would have defecated himself at the sight of an airplane, and certainly had no reason to fear something that didn't exist yet.

I realize that the Sharia thing was just a trial. But I did see your logic, though I was on the other guy's side.
Debate Round No. 2


mrpresident,it is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam

Opinion of historian De Lacy O'Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O'Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur'an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur'an 2:256]

Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur'an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur'an 16:125]

Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader's Digest ‘Almanac', year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth' magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

Media maligns Islam

Islam is without doubt the best religion but the media is in the hands of the westerners who are afraid of Islam. The media is continuously broadcasting and printing information against Islam. They either provide misinformation about Islam, misquote Islam or project a point out of proportion, if any.

When any bomb blasts take place anywhere, the first people to be accused without proof are invariably the Muslims. This appears as headlines in the news. Later, when they find that non-Muslims were responsible, it appears as an insignificant news' item.

If a 50 year old Muslim marries a 15 year old girl after taking her permission, it appears on the front page but when a 50 year old non-Muslim rapes a 6 year old girl, it may appear in the news in the inside pages as ‘Newsbriefs'. Everyday in America on an average 2,713 cases of rape take place but it doesn't appear in the news
Black sheep in every community:

I am aware that there are some Muslims who are dishonest, unreliable, who cheat, etc. but the media projects this as though only Muslims are involved in such activities. There are black sheep in every community. I know Muslims who are alcoholics and who can drink most of the non-Muslims under the table.

Muslims best as a whole:

Inspite of all the black sheep in the Muslim community, Muslims taken on the whole, yet form the best community in the world. We are the biggest community of tee-totallers as a whole, i.e. those who don't imbibe alcohol. Collectively, we are a community which gives the maximum charity in the world. There is not a single person in the world who can even show a candle to the Muslims where modesty is concerned; where sobriety is concerned; where human values and ethics are concerned.

Don't judge a car by its driver:

If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the "Mercedes" car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyze how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we can't judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith.

Judge Islam by its best follower i.e. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh):
If you practically want to check how good a car is put an expert driver behind the steering wheel. Similarly the best and the most exemplary follower of Islam by whom you can check how good Islam is, is the last and final messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Besides Muslims, there are several honest and unbiased non-Muslim historians who have acclaimed that prophet Muhammad was the best human being. According to Michael H. Hart who wrote the book, ‘The Hundred Most Influential Men in History', the topmost position, i.e. the number one position goes to the beloved prophet of Islam, Muhammad (pbuh). There are several such examples of non-Muslims paying great tributes to the prophet, like Thomas Carlyle, La-Martine, etc.


When Islam swept through the Byzantine world, they looted, raped, and pillaged Constantinople for three days, put most of the Christians there to the sword, and sold the rest in slavery. Do not point fingers when your religion has done just as bad and worse. Muslim Spain was a different dynasty than the other Muslims to the east. They were comparably more tolerant, but the Christians and Jews there still suffered persecution and humiliation under their Muslim masters.

The majority of the Coptic Christians reside in Egypt, where the church was established, and is one of the only places in the Muslim world where any religion other than Islam is in any substantial minority. Islam had no interest in destroying infidel populations while the were still profitable. They gave tribute to the state to be able to worship their God unmolested. They were the primary income for the state treasury. Islam had no interest in killing them all, only the ones who resisted their advance.

Though part of the Islamic world, India was it's own dynasty, the Moghul Empire. The main form of Islam is Sufism, traditionally worlds more peaceful and tolerant of it's Shia and Sunni cousins. Infidels were treated comparatively better there due to philosophical parallels with Hindu ideology, like nonviolence and monism. Though they had their moments of brutality and intolerance, they wer all around better than the rest.

The Eastern Africa is a battleground now thanks to the warriors of Islam. Conflicts in Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, Ethiopia and the like are mianly due to and Islamic minority that is trying to speed up the implementation of Sharia by killing of the Christian populations there. Such cannot be said as much for nations like Madagascar, but these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Malaysia had found Islam from India, and has been persecuting the native Buddhist populations there, though on a much smaller scale, due to the existance of mainly Sufi Islam. The same is true for Indonesia. Islam may have spread without the sword to these places, but they are quickly turning those swords on the ever dwindling non Muslims in both countries.

Thomas Carlyle was right. But Muhammed found his sword quicker than most men's ideas did. In less than 200 years after the death of the Prophet, Islam had and empire that stretched from Spain to modern-day Afghanistan. Even the might of Rome wasn't that quick to rouse, and the Romans were a truly bloodthirsty people. This must be telling about the followers of the Prophet. Islam got it's sword, and when it did, they slashed violently, cutting far, wide, and deep across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and even Europe. No people, nation, or religion expanded so quickly, excepting the Mongolians.

You and I both know that 2:256 was abrogated by later verses. That Sura was one of the Meccan ones, back when Muhammed was small time amogst the Pagans. he had to be tolerant, or else he'd be killed or ousted. It was his later verses, the Medinian ones, that carried the verses of hate and intolerance. Suras like 9 and 8 are the worst, and they are both Medinian verses. Muhammed had soldiers and followers by this time, and had no reason to go back to Mecca quietly. Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire. Abrogation removed this troublesome verse without making Islam seem contradictory. Most of the peaceful verses of the Qur'an ended this same way.

Sura 2:106 "None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?" Even the power to change his mind as opportunity arises.

The Sword of the Intellect sounds pretty, but every religion sounds pretty when you look at verses like this. Muhammed's idea of this was to send letters to all the leaders of the powers he knew of and ask them to join Islam. When they refused, so commenced the jihad. A lot of fat good the arguing did them, huh? If Islam was so true and so convincing, it would seem fitting that most Byzantines woul simply convert. But they had heard the stories of what Islam had done to their breathren in other areas, so they fought to the bloody end. The glorious Byzantine Empire was brought to a violent, bloody, and humiliating end on May 29, 1453. But they died on their feet as men, rather than cowards who accepted Islamic tyranny.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, but not because so many see the light of Islam. Besides, Islam grew 235% over a period of 50 years, but was comparably smaller and less advanced than Christianity, so the figures are really not as high as the percentage would say. Islamic birth rates are higher than Christian ones, because more Muslims live in places with dirt floorsm thatched roofs, and large families than Christians, one of the reasons for it's expansion. Another reason, one that Muslims should be ashamed of, is this.

Let's say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren't allowed to make any moves in his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves in yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken. Now, if the child is winning the game – which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can take true pride? The rules that Muslims impose on the "conversion game" are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam's own territory (ie. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed – on penalty of death. Watching Muslims gloat over being the "fastest growing religion" is no different than watching a child delude themselves into thinking that they are smarter and better for "beating" a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial "victory" entirely meaningless.

In matters of conversion, where faiths are given free reign to compete, like in the West, and unlike in much of the Islamic world, conversions to Christianity are double that of Islam. Islam has less of an appeal when it's not the only religion around.

And I think it's sort of despicable when people idolize someone as intolerant, violent, and desrespectful towards women as Muhammed. And he was a pedophile, to boot. Most of us think there's something sick about a 54 year old man marrying a girl when she's 6 and consummating the relationship when she's 9. I'll save the mistreatment of women for another debate.

Most of the time when bombs go off, it usually is some Islamic terrorist nutjob. We base things on precedent: if an Islamist did it before, it'll most likely be one next time. Somalia, Madrid, New York, Washington, London, Kashmir, Sudan, Israel and Palestine, Paris, Amsterdam, Chechnya. Wherever there's a problem, not necessarily involving bombs, half the involved parties are the followers of some fellow named Muhammed.

And, unfortunately, that's normally true.

raheelsoh, I want to give an enormous thank you to you for debating with me. I hope we are able to debate this further whenever we can. Just as in yourlast argument, you have shown yourself to be quite the debator. This was a GREAT debate, my friend!

I'll try your thing.

Salaam alaikum.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by majormerak 7 years ago
Heh, I didn't have the time to read the complete debate, but one thing I want to point out: If Islam is so violent, barbaric, etc. then how can Muslims in America live in peace and harmony with "infidels"?
Posted by mrpresident 8 years ago
AMBagoli, you're right, I'm a Christian, a Protestant, just like my profile says. I realize that at any given time, he could have attacked my religion for some of the same things, but the debate was about Islam. If we had spoken about Christianity, it wouldn't have been to the point of exposing Islam as ruthless and barbaric. And though Christianity had it's episodes, they were never as numerous as anyhting Islam has committed. I find it telling when you have to look back 500 years to find anything remotley big enough to qualify. Or 1000 years, if you want to go further. Those were the biggest episodes, and weren't as bloody as many would think, but depsicable acts nonetheless.

It is also worth mentioning that these acts were committed in violation of the code set down by God, and the commandments of Jesus. Those committed by Islam may look barbaric to us, but that's simply their way of following God. To give reproach to them is to give reproach to Allah. They were just being good Muslims. And do not read me wrong; though I believe Islam is a barbaric political project more than a religion, I believe there are many Muslims who are not involved with any of this and wish only to live in peace and worship Allah in their own way.

So, you wish for a debate with me? Again, I'm honored. Challenge me on what you will. I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by AMBagoli 8 years ago
i havent figured out how to send comments or messages to only one person if someone would tell me i would appreciate it, but whatever. mr. president, i have a question. you have done a beautiful of making islam looking violent, and raheelsoh has done his best to defend it. but....what i think is interesting is that he merely defended and watched while u attacked him. when you could have just as easily have been attacked for one of your beliefs (that in christianity). i know nothing of your religious views, however from looking at your profile i found out u are a self proclaimed "protestant". whatever you are, you are basically a christian correct? if i'm incorrect then i'm sorry and quit reading. but i want to ask a well read guy like you a very serious question. do you honestly think it is beyond someone with half your arguing capacity to attack your "belligerent" (christianity) belief (especially when you look at the old testament)? i dont want to seem confrontational; however, in my readings i honestly dont see how any christians can make any arguments against islam being a violent religion and possibly gain any upper hand.

if u read this....comment back or something. i'd like to hear from you.
Posted by zarul 8 years ago
Just wanted to correct some mistakes of mrpresident.

Muslim Spain was far more tolerant than the Spain after the Reconquista. The diffence between the two is not just a little, as you suggest with comparable.

In Muslim Spain, people were "tolerated", there was no government persecution. Post-Reconquista Spain was the exact opposite, with continually worsening persecution of non-Catholics.

You also use Islam inter-changeably with a lot of different words, such as Muslim countries/Ottoman Empire/etc., you might not want to do that, it kind of makes you look stupid.

You claim that Sharia and Islam is why there is conflict in East Africa. Can you tell me where in Sharia Muslims are told to go out and kill people randomly? And you do realize the political/economic situation of Africa has more to do with the conflict than religion right? Not to mention all the different ethnic groups conflicting.

The Mughal's were not Sufis, they were Sunnis.

Malaysia/Indonesia are also predominately Sunni. There is not a single Muslim country with a Sufi majority, or even close.

I could go on and on about "force conversions", but that's really more of a debate topic.

Abbrogation is not the only way to interpret the Quran.

Muhammed was in no way a pedophile, would you care to explain how you reached that point?
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
No one in the above debate has defined exactly what they mean by "ruthless" and "barbaric", and my own personall suggestion is that you should, because it shall give the debate firmer ground, and something more solid to reinforce/refute.
Posted by Advidoct 8 years ago
Raheelsoh, i wasnt even going to read this. To call any religion barbaric and ruthless is soooo incredibly ignorant.
I commend you on finding the courage to exhibit the intolerance that makes you look very very stupid.
Posted by Redman 8 years ago
Every organized religion is barbaric. Holy wars have happened within every single religion on either since its' beginning: maybe not today, but some day in the past. People ridiculously quarrel over this topic, because they are insecure and need to feel justified in their beliefs. They are afraid of being dead wrong. The only "religion" that can promote a pure righteousness is Free Thought, so long as the individuals respects the rights of other people.
Posted by mrpresident 8 years ago
You know, you're not the only one to ask me that. Only about 4 other people did before you. I'd be disinclined to say I'm a neocon, for my own reasons. But, I am conservative, as conservative comes. Why?
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
mrpresident, you are unbelievebly neo-conservative. The Koran does not promote terrorism anywhere. There are a few terrorists who use thier religion to justify thier actions, but this is also true of christianity.

You heard me right: there are christian terrorist groups. Namely the KKK.

And lastly, on you're profile, mrpresident, why do you quote adolf hitler?
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
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 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by xsweetlove 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaffaq0589 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Hoyt13 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by thirdworldpoet 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30