The Instigator
zaheer12a
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Shadow-Dragon
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Islam is a violent 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Shadow-Dragon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,630 times Debate No: 61023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

zaheer12a

Con

Nowadays in media the Islam is depicted as a violent religion which incites people to fight others and be intolerant. As a Muslim, I strongly disagree and would like to debate with someone who truly believes that the Islam is a violent religion.

The rounds will be as follows:
1. Introduction and initial arguments
2. Response to opponents arguments
3. Final response to opponent and conclusion.

________________________________

To truly analyse the teachings of Islam, a certain model is used to determine what the actual teachings are.

First of all, the Quran is accepted as the true and uncorrupted word of God. Different verses cannot contradict each other, so there is no 'abrogation' of any verse in the Quran. However, some verses can be interpreted in different ways. When this is the case, the next thing to look at is how the Holy Prophet Muhammad practised Islam. He has been made as an example of an ideal Muslim:

Surat Al-Ahzaab 33:21
"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Yusuf Ali

The example of the Prophet Muhammad is described in Hadith. These are collections of what Muhammad said and what he did. These are narrated by companions of Muhammad and therefore are not always accurate or true. There are several books which have collected authentic hadith which are accepted by the Muslim scholars. These 5 books are: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Jami al-Tirmidhi and Sunan al-Sughra.

After these sources have been checked, then you refer to the decisions of Islamic scholars, referred to as the Ulema. They usually issue 'fatwas'. A fatwa is not a binding decision, but rather an advice based on the ulema's interpretation of the Quran and Hadith.

Now I will present my actual arguments about the peaceful nature of Islam.

1. The Islam explicitly promotes freedom of religion.

Surat al-Baqarah 2:256
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."
Yusuf Ali

In this verse, God states clearly that nobody can be forced to believe. The signs of God and of the religion have been provided and the rest is up to us. Therefore no Muslim can force any other person to become a Muslim. The task of a Muslim is to convey the message of Islam, but the choice to believe or not to believe is each individuals own choice.

Surat Aal-e-Imraan 3:20
"So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants."
Yusuf Ali

Here is another verse where is explicitly stated that the Messengers task is just to convey the message. Even if the receiver rejects this message, the messenger has done his job.

2. It is often claimed that the Quran calls to Jihad, where the Muslims should be the aggressor against the disbelievers. This is not true:

Surat al-Haj 22:39
"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid"
Yusuf Ali

Here God states that Muslims are allowed to defend themselves if war is waged against them. There is no mention of aggression here.

Another verse which is quite commonly used in the media is the following:
Surat al-Baqarah 2:191
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."
Yusuf Ali

If you look at this verse alone, this might suggest that Muslims are told to kill the disbelievers, however if you look at the surrounding verses you find the following:

Surat al-Baqarah 2:190-194
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."
Yusuf Ali

Again, there is mention of oppression. When the oppression has stopped, Muslims should stop fighting. In current Western society, there is freedom of religion. There is no case of oppression. Only in situations like the war in Afghanistan or Iraq where an army is invading a country, Muslims have been given the right to defend themselves.

From these two arguments you can clearly see that the Islam promotes freedom of religion, preventing inter-religious violence. Islam is also quite clear on the matter of war. A war is only allowed as a defensive measure. Therefore the current extremist view that all disbelievers should be killed is not allowed and is in direct contradiction with the Quran. That makes it non-Islamic, even if extremists claim to fight in the name of Islam. God is the highest authority and he speaks through the Quran in this case, dismissing their claim.
Shadow-Dragon

Pro

The information I provide is what I learned, and have cross-checked with other sources. I'll try to be unbiased, but that is difficult when discussing a religion that promotes killing, violence, and other acts of evil.

Let's begin by evaluating the roots of Islam

The Founder

This religion was founded by Muhammad, a simple man from the Qurash tribe, who claimed to have a revelation, and went on to spread his faith.
The following link {1} highlights the crimes this violent criminal committed throughout his lifetime. From rape, to cold-blooded killing, Muhammad was a criminal and should have been prosecuted for his crimes. However, this did not happen, probably due to the size of his followers.

After beings exiled from his home city, Mecca, for his preaching, he and his followers set off to Medina, where they gained more followers. Muhammad built up the army he needed to reconquest his home town.

How did he conquer Mecca, the city he was raised in? By ruthlessly murdering hundreds in a surprise attack. Anyone who he thought wronged him, he murdered.
Hundreds of women, children. DEAD.


The following passage documents his prayers: “Oh Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh [Mecca] so that we may take them by surprise in their land,” and the men got themselves ready. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 808)" {2}

When asked to spare mercy on the Meccans, he says: “I have no use for them. As for my cousin, he as wounded my pride; and as for my aunt’s son and my brother-in-law, he spoke insulting of me in Mecca.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 811)" {2}

Those passages, in and of themselves, shine light on the founder of this religion of violence as a criminal, with no mercy for anyone.

But that was not all! He further brought shame to his already dirty name by approving prostitution, marrying multiple women at once (setting the precedent for the common practice among Muslim men today), and raping young girls. {1}

All that I have is cross- referenced, and factual. The founder of Islam was a violent criminal, and encouraged violent behavior that would be written in the quran, and followed for generations.


The Book

The following are passages that have been taken from the quran. Once again, these cannot be argued, for they have been referenced. {3}

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..." This passage invokes their god, and encourages modern Muslims to practice Jihad, even if it means violence.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." This passage once again uses their god, allah, and claims that followers must punish non-believers, and so will their god.

Finally, I would like to conclude with the following:
The Muslim faith is indeed a religion of violence. Not only was the religion founded by a murderer, rapist, pedophile, etc., the quran encourages behavior like so, and motivates Muslims with promises of riches, happiness, etc.

The facts cannot be refuted. We see the evidence in modern times, as well. Women beaten for having sex with another man, however, men can wed as many women as they want. Women are forced to cover their body under the punishment of death. A tourist, if caught with a Bible, could be captured and killed. ISIS rules over islamic states through fear and oppression, just like the Taliban ruled Afghanistan years ago, and even today. All of this violence for generations has been promoted and encouraged by Islam, a religion of violence.


{1}http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...

{2} http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

{3} http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Debate Round No. 1
zaheer12a

Con

You have provided a few arguments regarding the character of Muhammad and some parts of the Quran. I will try to clarify these issues in the order you presented them.

Allegations against Muhammad
First you linked to a site with a list of crimes the Holy Prophet Muhammad is accused of. The first is about Aisha and her being underage. The references used are two hadith from Sahih Bukhari. This book is considered authentic, but that does not mean it is without fault. Any hadith in these books can still be inaccurate.

That being said, these hadith are indeed included in Sahih Bukhari. However, historical events seem to contradict these hadith. [1][2] Reports suggest that Aisha was at least 10 years of age when she was betrothed and at least 15 when she actually married Muhammad. Besides her actual age, she was also betrothed to someone else before Muhammad, implying she was already coming of age. (In Arab culture in that age, one would be an adult after puberty).

It is also suggested that Muhammad had intercourse during menses. The hadith in question clearly mention the use of a waist-wrapper of some sorts and mention foreplay, but not sex. [4] Also the Quran is quite clear, during menses it is forbidden to have sex. [3]
The allegation of necrophilia with the aunt of Muhammad is based on one single hadith from a book that is not considered authentic by the majority of Muslim scholars. Therefore this hadith is dismissed as unreliable unless more convincing evidence is provided. (Something as disgraceful as necrophilia must have been noticed and heard by many other people in Muhammad’s time, one would think)

The next accusation is that Muhammad raped women and had sex slaves, etc. The only source provided are verses from the Quran which allow sexual relations with ones wives and slave girls [5-8]. There is no evidence that he would actually rape women. Historical data also shows that Muhammad had a total of eleven wives. They all chose to stay married out of their free will:
“O Prophet! Say to thy consorts “If it be that ye desire the life of this world, and its glitter, – then come! I will provide for your sustenance and set you free in a handsome manner. But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the home of the hereafter, verily God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.” [9]

Here the wives of the Prophet have been given the choice. They can leave him (without repercussions) and they will be well provided for (by the Prophet) or they can choose to stay with him.

Also in Islam, polygamy is allowed. Men have been given permission to marry up to 4 women. [10] The only exception that is made, is for the Holy Prophet. Polygamy is nothing new in Islam. Polygamy existed in Arabia long before Islam came. In recent history (mainly around the Middle Ages) it was common for men of high rankings to have a mistress (outside of marriage). Even in our Western society extramarital affairs and having a mistress is fairly common. The only thing Islam does is regulate this. It adds a condition to marrying multiple women: all wives should be treated equally and if this is not possible, it is not allowed to marry multiple women. [10]

If you think about it there are practical reasons why polygamy could be required or be necessary. The most obvious situation is when a woman becomes infertile and the couple have a desire for children. Also in times of war, a soldier can be separated from his wife for a long period of time, but he still has his need and physical desire for women. In this case he can also marry a second woman. After a war there can be a situation where a lot of men have been killed and there is a ‘shortage of men’. In this case it would also be practical and helpful to have multiple wives and provide for the widows of soldiers.

The Prophet Muhammad also set an example by marrying different wives. His wives all had different backgrounds: poor, rich, slave, princess, young, old, from his own tribe, from other tribes, a widow. He showed his followers that you should marry women regardless of their background, based on their righteousness. Muhammad’s wives were meant as an example and as teachers for the Muslims. [11] He was also a righteous man and spent a major part of the night in prayer and he would spend the last part of the night asleep. [12][13] This shows that he was not crazy for women as is being suggested.

Another accusation that is being made is that Muhammad married a Jewish slave and raped her on the same day her family was killed. That Muhammad married this Jewish slave girl is true and recorded in two of the hadith that are mentioned.[15][16] However these hadith also mention that the marriage took place after the menses of Safiya, implying there was some time between the battle and the marriage. There is also no mention of rape. The Quran explicitly states that it is not allowed to marry a woman without consent. [14] If Muhammad acted against this commandment there would have been objection and witnesses to this fact and these are not provided along with the allegation.

I think after these arguments it is safe to say that the source provided is not reliable. Besides all the allegations which had any reference have been answered above. The rest of the allegations have no reference whatsoever, therefore they can be dismissed unless any convincing evidence is provided.

The battle of Badr and the conquest of Mecca
You and the sources you have provided imply that the Muslims were living in complete peace and were not being oppressed. When Islam started out in Mecca, they were harassed and prosecuted for 12 years. Eventually Muhammad and the Muslims fled to Medina, leaving behind most of their possessions and some even their families, because all tribes in Mecca decided that Muhammad should be killed. When the Muslims were in Medina, they still could not practice a fundamental part of their faith: the pilgrimage to Mecca. Eventually because of this oppression and the revelation that allowed defensive war Muhammad decided to fight the Quraish. This lead to the Battle of Badr. [17]

Later, after the battle of Badr, the Muslims went for the small pilgrimage (Umrah) and they were refused entry into Mecca. This lead to a peace treaty and the Muslims could make the pilgrimage the year after. The Meccans were the ones to break this treaty and attack and kill Muslims. [18] This lead to the conquest of Mecca. Even after this battle, the disbelievers were not punished, even the enemies that surrendered were not punished and many of them converted because of this generosity.

Violence in the Quran
I have cited a few verses in my opening statement, namely Surat al-Baqarah 2:190-194. These are the often named verses with the famous translation “And kill them wherever you find them”. If you look in the verse immediately preceding it, it explains everything.

The verse basically describes the conditions of an Islamic war:
1. It needs to be "vee sabi lillah", literally "in the way of Allah". It is also used to say "to remove obstacles that are in the way of Allah"
2. The second condition is: "those who fight against you". This is explicitly said in these terms, there is no figurative speech or metaphorical speech, but it literally says this. So there is no room for doubt that this means that it's a condition that you are defending, not the aggressor.
3. The third condition, directly following from the same term as above ("those who fight against you"): people who are not fighting you should not be harmed.
4. The last condition is named in the term: "do not transgress". This means that once the enemy stops fighting, the muslims should stop fighting. [19]

Muslims believe that the Quran contains no contradictions and there is no abrogation of verses. This means that there is no verse which supersedes another. Therefore, all the other verses about warfare (actually all other verses in general) cannot be seen separate from this verse. Any place in the Quran where there is reference to war or fighting, this verse cannot be ignored. These are the basic instructions for an Islamic war and anyone claiming to fight in the name of Islam while not meeting these conditions is in the wrong (according to the Quran itself). The verses about striking the throat and fingertips are merely instructions to either deliver a quick killing blow (and minimising suffering of the victim) or disarm the opponent and sparing their lives.

Finally I would like to respond to this quote:
“Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." This passage once again uses their god, allah, and claims that followers must punish non-believers, and so will their god.”

The Quran is the word of God (hence often the phrase “Say: …” because Muhammad is being commanded to convey a message, the Quran does not contain Muhammad’s own words according to Muslim belief). God is saying he will punish them Himself. Nobody else is being told to kill disbelievers.

Sources:
[1] http://www.muslim.org...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com...
[3] Surat al-Baqarah 2:222
[4] Sahih Muslim 293, 294, 295
[5] Surat al-Ma’arij 70:29-31
[6] Surat al Mu’minun 23:5-7
[7] Surat an-Nisa 4:23-24
[8] Surat al-Ahzab 33:50
[9] Surat al-Ahzab 33:28-29, Yusuf Ali
[10] Surat an-Nisa 4:3
[11] http://www.al-islam.org...
[12] Tirmidhi 442, 443, 448
[13] Sahih Bukhari Book 19 Prayer at Night (Tahajjud)
[14] Surat an-Nisa 4:19
[15] Sahih Bukhari 4211
[16] Sahih Bukhari 371
[17] http://insideislam.wisc.edu...
[18] http://insideislam.wisc.edu...
[19] http://www.alislam.org...?
Shadow-Dragon

Pro

Okay, I will refute your points this round.

"This book is considered authentic, but that does not mean it is without fault. Any hadith in these books can still be inaccurate."

Here, my opponent basically admits that part of his book could be innacurate. Thus, one cannot tell how much of the book is a fraud. As a result, my opponent concedes on the points I made about Muhammad's crimes, since he cannot refute them; he is unable to tell which parts of the book are 'legitimate'- if any- so he cannot use those against me.

He, however, uses parts of the book- a book he just said can be innacurate- to break my arguments. They, however, still stand, as my sources are cited from the previous round.


"The allegation of necrophilia with the aunt of Muhammad is based on one single hadith from a book that is not considered authentic by the majority of Muslim scholars. Therefore this hadith is dismissed as unreliable unless more convincing evidence is provided. (Something as disgraceful as necrophilia must have been noticed and heard by many other people in Muhammad’s time, one would think) "

I did not bring up necrophilia, but it might have been in one of the sources. He does however say that other's would have noticed it, and written about it. However, as I have shown previously, Muhammad terorized all who went against him, so I doubt anyone would risk writing about his sexual exploits.


"{His wives} all chose to stay married out of their free will" :
"O Prophet! Say to thy consorts “If it be that ye desire the life of this world, and its glitter, – then come! I will provide for your sustenance and set you free in a handsome manner. But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the home of the hereafter, verily God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.”
"Here the wives of the Prophet have been given the choice. They can leave him (without repercussions) and they will be well provided for (by the Prophet) or they can choose to stay with him."

This, once again, cannot be proven, and even the quote he provided does not prove it. It only states that the wives would be rewarded, but isn't that qutie an incentive to stay? Unless you provide a first-hand source from his wives (I doubt they were allowed to learn to write), you concede on that point as well. Someone writing about the wives would not stop to ask for their opinions.


My oppononet goes on to justify polygamy, which is quite funny. It's immoral. Somewhere in Islam mentions not to be lustful, and if men are getting women for pleasure, as my opponent stated, that is lust. Bad muslim.


Lastly, my opponent concedes on another point when he says:

“Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." This passage once again uses their god, allah, and claims that followers must punish non-believers, and so will their god.”

The Quran is the word of God (hence often the phrase “Say: …” because Muhammad is being commanded to convey a message, the Quran does not contain Muhammad’s own words according to Muslim belief). God is saying he will punish them Himself. Nobody else is being told to kill disbelievers."


Here, he admits that his own god will punish non-believers. That is violence. If the own god of islam is saying that he will punish people, the religion is violent. Your own god states it!

I rest my case. Islam is a religion of violence. I await my opponents response.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
zaheer12a

Con

In this final round I will give a final answer your arguments and provide a conclusion.

Here, my opponent basically admits that part of his book could be inaccurate. Thus, one cannot tell how much of the book is a fraud.”

The comment I made was referring to the hadith. As I already said in my opening statement, the Quran is God’s own word. The hadith are a supplement to that and are mere testimonies of companions of Muhammad. These are collected by several people, including Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. The have attempted to gather the reliable hadith where possible. Especially when regarding practical or fundamental issues (such as how to pray, times of prayer, which prayers to recite, etc.) these hadith were submitted to stringent tests. When it comes to academic matters (for example description of historical events) the tests were less stringent. Therefore anything that is said in the Quran is taken as the truth and without doubt and there we as Muslims believe there is no contradiction. The hadith however, are composed by Islamic scholars of that time and can contain mistakes or inaccuracies. Many hadith are mentioned many times in different books. This points to their authenticity. If a hadith is mentioned only once, that might suggest that it is not authentic. Also any hadith that contradict the Quran are believed to be unauthentic. [1]

Muhammad terorized all who went against him, so I doubt anyone would risk writing about his sexual exploits.

Historicians (even from the Western world: Sir Bosworth Smith, Sir William Muir, Thomas Carlyle) have described Muhammad as an honest, trustworthy and good man. He received his first revelations at the age of 40. Before this time he had already been given nicknames as ‘Siddiq’ (the truthful) and Al-Amin (the trustworthy). His first wife, Khadija, was a rich businesswoman. She sent Muhammad to places like Syria for trade-related matters. Muhammad’s honestly and good character impressed her so much that she asked him to marry him. [2]

This shows that Muhammad was a man of good character and not someone who would terrorise people.

“This, once again, cannot be proven, and even the quote he provided does not prove it. It only states that the wives would be rewarded, but isn't that qutie an incentive to stay?

The quote I presented is from the Quran itself, so it is authentic. I will repeat the quote:

"O Prophet! Say to thy consorts “If it be that ye desire the life of this world, and its glitter, – then come! I will provide for your sustenance and set you free in a handsome manner. But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the home of the hereafter, verily God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.” [3]

It clearly says that if the wives of Muhammad desired to leave (because the wives of Muhammad were very respected individuals and were seen as role-models, which can become a burden) they had the free choice to do so, without incurring any punishment. On the contrary! Muhammad tells them that he will provide for them (financially) and they would not have any problems. The verse continues to say that if they are true believers and want to get rewarded by God (in the Afterlife) they should decide to stay. As you say, this is indeed quite an incentive and further proves my point that they decided to stay by choice, even if it was just for the reward in the afterlife and not for the love of Muhammad (which is what you are suggesting).

Another point regarding this issue is that this is a Quranic verse, which means everyone knew about this. Everyone knew that this choice was given to the wives. This is not a private matter, it’s out in the open.

My oppononet goes on to justify polygamy, which is quite funny. It's immoral. Somewhere in Islam mentions not to be lustful, and if men are getting women for pleasure, as my opponent stated, that is lust. Bad muslim.

I provided situations where polygamy could be justified. This does not mean that it is or should be the norm. Going outside and cross-dressing is allowed by the law. This does not mean that everyone actually does it. The same principle can be applied here. The Quran has given permission for polygamy, but this does not mean that everyone should do it.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad married so many women, but not out of lust. I provided the examples of hadith (there are many hadith regarding this, making it more reliable) from Aisha that Muhammad would spent major parts of the night in prayer. The latter part of the nights he would sleep. He also treated women in general with a lot of respect and was not known as a ‘womanizer’. [2]

Here, he admits that his own god will punish non-believers. That is violence. If the own god of islam is saying that he will punish people, the religion is violent. Your own god states it!

God has revealed his signs and has provided us with a law. It is our choice to follow or not follow this law. Just like with secular laws, if you break it, you will be punished. People who repeatedly violate the law will get heavier punishments. People who make minor mistakes are treated more leniently. The same applies to the law of God. If you broke his law repeatedly and do not repent making these mistakes, you will get the punishment. This is nothing more than justice. If you did break the law and later repented and became a better person, you will be forgiven. That is also justice.

However, having to spend an eternity in Hell for crimes committed in a limited time span in this life would not be justice. This is also not the Islamic concept of Hell. In Islam, Hell is merely a ‘penitentiary’ where people go for a limited time and eventually everyone will end up in Heaven. How can you say this is violence? You wouldn’t say that giving a life sentence to a murderer would be violent, would you? This is exactly the same principle. [4]

Conclusion

In my opinion I have sufficiently provided evidence to prove my point, that Islam is not a violent religion. All verses that are cited as being violent and inciting hate have been taking out of context (as explained), as the basic conditions of Islamic warfare have been explained clearly (Surat al-Baqarah 2:190-194). Any war that does not meet the conditions of war as laid down in the Quran cannot have any Islamic justification and therefore is politically motivated.

The actions of Muslims cannot be used to judge the teachings themselves. If we look throughout history, many major religions started out peacefully, but the further they got from their prophets (in time), the further they deviated from their teachings. The Islam is no exception. Many so called imams corrupt the teachings of Islam and spread lies that have no Quranic basis. To study true Islam, one should not look at these imams or mullahs, but at the true source: the Quran. In addition to the Quran one should look at the character and example of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

A lot of lies and rumors have been spread about the character and life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. The sources that my opponent has provided either cite no external sources (2 and 3) or provide dubious sources (1), yet these are being described as factual and cross referenced (where is the lists of references?). The fact is, historical data cannot be factually proven, unless there is visual documentation. (in this case it is impossible, since there were no video cameras 1400 years ago) Historical data is inherently biased (a famous saying: History is written by the victors). Therefore we have to rely on the data provided by historians. A majority of historical descriptions are in favor of what I have presented. Therefore I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence to refute the allegations based on these dubious sources.

The sources I have provided from alislam.org are cross-referenced and usually contain a list of references either in footnotes or at the end of the chapter. Therefore, I would recommend anyone who has questions about Islam or wants to know more about Islam goes to these websites (www.alislam.org and www.reviewofreligions.org) for more information, because Islam covers a wide range of issues and it is impossible for me to know and provide all of this information at once. [5][6]

References:

[1] http://www.alislam.org...

[2] http://www.alislam.org...

[3]Surat al-Ahzab 33:28-29, Yusuf Ali

[4] A Philosophical Cocept of the Doctrine of Hell, Review of Religions, 1908 (http://www.reviewofreligions.org...)

[5] www.alislam.org

[6] www.reviewofreligions.org

Shadow-Dragon

Pro

Thanks for this debate. I enjoyed it, and hope readers learned from this debate.

Firstly, I would like viewers to watch this video. Watch the video in whole, it is revealing.

https://www.youtube.com...

Secondly, I would like to address some of my opponent's points.

1. Muslim's Hypocritical Logic

"The comment I made was referring to the hadith. As I already said in my opening statement, the Quran is God’s own word."

Here, my opponent admits that the hadith could, and many a time, be wrong. However, he goes on by personally validating the quran. This, as readers may realize, is quite illogical. One cannot argue that one of the books is wrong, withough questioning the authenticity of the other, something my opponent (along with many muslims) fails to do.

2. "Pre-Revelation" Muhammad
My opponent continues by explaining that Muhammad was an honest man and good man, before his revelation.
He very well may have been. However, as society can attest to, especcially in the case of politicians and celebrities, fam and fortune can ruin a man/person. Even if he was good before his 'revelation', he was easily corrupted afterwards, once his power got to his head. Since my opponent failed to prove that he maintained the same honest attitude during his later-life, he concedes on that point, too.

3. Muhammad's Wives
My opponent has tried to defend his prophet's sexual exploits. Of course, Islam does allow polygamy, but that only shows what kind of religion it is. Polygamy, whether practiced or not, is looked down upon by modern humans. Niether I nor my opponent can prove why his wives stayed with him, but the evidence- even those provided by him- lean towards my conclusion: They could have felt fear, or were enticed by his power.

4. The Common Trick
I have heard arguments that my opponent has provided many a time.
It goes like such: "Only some muslims are extremists, but not all muslims are like that."
This, however, is not a valid argument. Although only some muslims are extremists, the religion is extreme. The fact that only some people follow the violence the quran promotes does not mean the religion is peaceful. It just means that many muslims do not follow the quran in its violent teachings.

5. Modern Islam
Time and time again, Islam has dirtied its name, and Muslims have embarrased their religion.
My opponent, a devout muslim, has desperately tried to defend his religion. In the comment section, he says that the quran does not promote the death penalty for apostates.
However, many apostates are given the death penalty by men who perform these acts of violence in the name of their god.
One of the main pillars of islam is treating women equally. However, The Pew survey reveals that more than 90% of the world's muslims believe that women should ALWAYS obey their husband. The Quran may not condone it, but women face tyranny all over the world at the hands of their abusive husbands.



All in all, I have successfully proven that Islam is indeed a religion of violence. From the sexually unclean, ruthless life of Muhammad, to the killings of thousand in recent years, Islam has shown the world what kind of religion it is.
Killing apostates, women who speak out{1}, and those who chose to question authority. None of these unalienable rights are supported by the strict muslim community, a community that only recently allowed women to drive in Saudi Arabia, but still disallows a person to carry a Bible- or any other holy book beside the quran- in that same area.
A religion that commonly clashes with other religions, and practices anti-semitism.{2} The relgion has been founded on violence as seen in Muhammad's attack on Mecca, and continues on the same path. Muslims have been brain-washed into accepting the quran as literal truth, and people, like the one the man discusses in the first video, are killed for their exploration of other religions, or critisizing of Islam. Islam is a religion of violence.

I rest my case. Thanks to my opponent and to all the readers.

Thanks.


{1} http://www.foxnews.com...;
{2} http://news.stanford.edu...;
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zaheer12a 3 years ago
zaheer12a
Likewise.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 3 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Thanks to my opponent and to all the readers. Hope you enjoyed this debate.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 3 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
I suggest you two debate each other, rather than have a comment war.

Thanks.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
DavidMGold
If you wish to debate, then by all means challenge me.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
DavidMGold
On Terror, you cannot deny that the Sunna records Muhammad saying he has been made victorious by terror and the terror a polytheist experiences with regard to Muslims seems evident given historical examples like Tamerlane embarking on Jihad into India and sacking Dehli leaving pyramids of human skulls in his wake. Of course that must have been self-defense!

Since you wish to deny abrogation, let's look at your Qu'ran - 2:106""Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" Next verse - Surah 16:101""And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know." Abolishing the Provisions [Hikmuh] of the verse without eliminating its Wording [Harfuh] or text from the Quran. The verse of the Sword verse [al Sayf] 9:5 which abrogates 124 earlier conciliatory Meccan verses. Also, please don't suggest the Qu'ran is a perfect book, because I would totally dispute this contention. If you wish to deny Naskh exists in Islam, please explain to me why you don't drink alcohol or gamble!

Abrogation is in the Qu'ran and here's a Muslim defending the contention, which isn't a minority -

http://www.ummah.com...
This traditional view of Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqhs, or schools of jurisprudence each with their own interpretation of Sharia, all agree on death as the punishment for apostasy. It is stunning that you can keep denying this. You don't deny 20 Islamic countries have reflected this in law and that polling shows majorities of Muslims support this.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
DavidMGold
Regarding 2:190, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn says, "And fight in the way of God, to elevate His religion, with those who fight against you, the disbelievers, but aggress not, against them by initiating the fighting; God loves not the aggressors, the ones that overstep the bounds which God has set for them: this stipulation was abrogated by the verse of barā"a, "immunity" [Q. 9:1]..."

http://www.altafsir.com...

What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers "until God alone is worshipped." Says Bulandshahri: "The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah." This conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities. This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as 9:29 states explicitly. As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it: "I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah."

This is another case of you once again you using Taqiyya.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
DavidMGold
Regarding Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam, I would argue that our small debate here demonstrates this practice. Taqiyya is "concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." I quoted Sami Mukaram, Islamic studies professor in Beirut, about the practice, which is not only a practice among the Shitte Muslims. Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi"a, much like you find yourself living in a European country or on a forum such as this one.

Taqiyya is at work, for example, when you speak of a great Jihad and small jihad. Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur"an, writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears " evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show." Muhammad"s close companion Abu Darda, who said, "Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them." Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]." 1) As a Muslim, you know that this is not considered a genuine Hadith because it CONTRADICTS Qu'ran 4:95. 2) In all the major Hadiths - Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah - they refer only to Jihad as a warfare against unbelievers. 3) The Hadith is considered a fabrication by Islamic sources who note that Jihad warfare is second to importance as a belief in allah. To me, this demonstrates that you are clearly either ignorant (which I doubt a self-described devout Muslim would be) of Islam or you are using Taqiyya do intentionally deceive on the meaning of Jihad.
Posted by zaheer12a 3 years ago
zaheer12a
When it comes the the references to terror. Again, that comes from Allah. If the enemies become afraid of the Muslims for whatever reason, that is a benefit during fighting. And the commentary I linked to said regarding the polytheists that they live in fear and superstition due to the nature of polytheism, not because Muslims have terrorised them

"As for apostasy in Islam, again, you keep using verses that clearly are abrogated and you even ignore the explicit command of Muhammad from your own Hadith on this matter."
First, there is no abrogation of any verses. In the opening of al-Baqarah it is said "this is a perfect book". How can there be verses that are not universal and invalid at times in a perfect book? Therefore Muslims believe that all verses are valid and cannot contradict each other. If there is an interpretation that causes contradiction, that interpretation is invalid. There is only a small minority of Muslims that do believe in abrogation, but the vast majority rejects this view.

When it comes to the point of the hadith. I have linked a very detailed analysis of this hadith and verses of the Quran. The hadith you are referring to is considered unreliable since it causes numerous contradictions and has internal contradictions. Furthermore, one of the narrators is a known enemy of Islam and is not entirely reliable concerning hadith.

Here is that book again: http://www.alislam.org... (chapter 7 mainly)

I would gladly debate you if you are interested and request you to set up a debate in that case.
Posted by zaheer12a 3 years ago
zaheer12a
First you refer to "Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam" and say this is fundamental. This doctrine only refers to direct threats. Whenever a Muslim is in fear of his or her life or in fear of persecution, they are allowed to lie about their faith. Furthermore, this mainly something that's relevant to Shia belief.

Regarding Jihad, there are three types: The greatest, great and small jihad. The greatest jihad is the one of self-reformation, to improve oneself. The great jihad is the propagation of Islam, by peaceful means. The small jihad is that of self-defense. When muslims are oppressed and prosecuted and there is no freedom of religion, they have the right to defend themselves.

http://islamicfaq.org...

It's also funny that the one verse immediately preceding the ones you have cited is this:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." (2:190)
This poses the condition that a war must be defensive (against those who fight you). Since there cannot be any contradiction in the Quran according to Muslim belief, anywhere there is reference to fighting or war, it must be defensive.

"Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

The way you interpreted the first part means that every non-muslim should be killed. This causes a lot of contradiction with other verses. That is why that can't be a correct interpretation. A correct interpretation would be that Muslims should until they are free to practise their religion. The second part: az-zalimun means people who oppress, or people who are cruel. So it is obvious that the Quran talks about defensive measures.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
DavidMGold
"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.)" Astonishing! Fight them (non-Muslims) until there is no worship but Islam. That's a doctrine of total war and extermination. By the way, I'm quite frankly disgusted that you can continue pretending that decapitation and mutilation were merciful, but of course we're talking about the religion of peace (sarcasm :D).

As for 3:151, again, you have nothing to dispute my contention about your inspiration of terror and fighting and killing people because they disbelieve in a 7th century terrorist and his false doctrine. Are you reading your own holy verse, "...because they associate partners with Allah," which is anyone who associates a deity equal to allah. And your commentary doesn't alter the point and can be called an irrelevant claim about those to be or about to be terrorized.

And yet again, read your Hadith, your beloved prophet words, "...Muhammad said, 'I was made victorious with terror."

As for apostasy in Islam, again, you keep using verses that clearly are abrogated and you even ignore the explicit command of Muhammad from your own Hadith on this matter. You know you cannot overcome the obvious reality that 20 Islamic countries sanction death for it as well as numerous accounts of Muslims carrying out murderprecisely because one left Islam as well as the accounts of ex-Muslims who time and again express how threatened they feel when they leave the Ummah. The political motivation for laws you suggest, but you overlook just what that is...that adherents demand it and will not permit apostasy to go unpunished by anything less and often the lynch mob goes into action before the government.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 3 years ago
Robert_Weiler
zaheer12aShadow-DragonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made clear and concise arguments showing that Islam is a violent religion. Made more convincing by Con's assertion in Round 1 that many of the Hadith Pro was quoting were authentic. Con used Hadith he claimed were authentic to attempt to refute Pro's argument. When Pro used the same collection of Hadith Con claimed they can be inaccurate at any time, conduct.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
NathanDuclos
zaheer12aShadow-DragonTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a very clear, organized, easy to follow. however Pro also got caught up in the founder, there were better arguments to be had by pro, however CON was exceptional at clouding the issues and the debate strayed from point. However I feel pro met his burden of proof, barely. Also Con had better sources for additional support. Thank you for debate and the reading. .
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
zaheer12aShadow-DragonTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply didn't understand the interpretative system of the Mohammedan faith. You cannot prove that a religion teaches something if you ignore the system said religion has for determining what true teachings are. He also entirely misrepresented Pro's arguments on more than one occasion. So, in spite of the fact that I am unpersuaded that Mahound's sect is not a violent one, I award both arguments and sources to Con.