The Instigator
hauki20
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Bnesiba
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Islam is an evil religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
Bnesiba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,551 times Debate No: 7105
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (7)

 

hauki20

Pro

Calling all Muslims (or anyone else who wishes) to debate about the religion of Islam.

Now, I'm not a racist towards Muslims. This is not racism.

This is not a debate about Islam. This is a debate about Muhammad. By the way, I'm a Christian.

Muhammad, who Muslims consider the "Seal of Prophets" and the greatest of all prophets, did not live a moral life as Muslims suggest. Here are some facts about his life:

1) Muhammad: Had eleven wives at once.

2) Muhammad: Murdered 600-900 innocent and unarmed people.

3) Muhammad: Traded in slaves.

4) Muhammad: Robbed Meccan caravans.

5) Muhammad: Raped women.

6) Muhammad: Tortured people.

7) Muhammad: Kept concubines for sex.

8) Muhammad: Beat his wife.

9) Muhammad: Ordered the deaths of those who left Islam.

10) Muhammad: Was a pedophile because he had sex with a 9 year old girl.

I have much more evidence to back up my claim about Islam, but I'm going to leave them out of this round.
Bnesiba

Con

First of all, I am a practicing Christian. I just find the fact that someone would even think of posting a topic like this offensive, and wrong. I don't believe that very many religions are truly "evil" and this is no exception.

I will present this in the form of a simplified (no debate-speak) LD case.

I will open with definitions and Resolutional Analysis:

Religion: a system of beliefs founded in the idea of a single or group of supreme deities who created the world.

Evil: morally objectionable behavior (Princeton Wordnet) I will get to the definition of "moral" later in my case

Resolutional Analysis (what the resolution means):
Because the resolution specifically states that "Islam" is evil, the pro must prove that the religion is, in and of itself evil. Furthermore, because the resolution states the word "Evil" the affirmative must prove an inherent moral discrepancy. (And must therefore provide something to judge morality or accept mine)

Moral Framework (how to judge morals): Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a framework first proposed by Jeremy Bentham, and then revised and explained further by his prot�g� John Stuart Mill.

A.)Definition:
Utilitarianism holds that an action is right in proportion that it tends to promote happiness and wrong as then tend to promote the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.

B.)Utilitarianism is the only true moral framework
When looking to ANY other moral framework you will see that all other frameworks rely on the assumption of utilitarianism.

C.)Utilitarianism is the reason good things are good.
Think of ANYTHING that is generally thought of as good. Ask yourself, why is this good? You will inevitably end up always answering, either, "This augments pleasure" or "this decreases displeasure"
The same follows for displeasure and wrong-ness

For example:

1.)Why do we want security? Because it decreases the chances of pain being inflicted on us

2.)Why do we want to protect Life? Because we fear death, and fear is a form of displeasure.

3.)Why do we want to not go to hell? Because hell is the epitome of pain and suffering.

4.)Why shouldn't I go killing random innocent people? Because this increases displeasure for many people.

Now let's talk about Islam (case):

1.)The Tenets of Islam, and how they increase happiness or decrease pain.

A.)First Pillar: The shahadah, which is the basic creed or tenet of Islam: "'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh", or "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God"

Well... I don't think reciting things like this is going to hurt anyone. And, I'm sure the Muslims do gain happiness from following their religion (or pain from not) which means that this increases happiness, and is therefore good.

B.)Second Pillar: Salah, or ritual prayer, which must be performed five times a day. Each salah is done facing towards the Kaaba in Mecca. Salah is intended to focus the mind on God, and is seen as a personal communication with him that expresses gratitude and worship.

Again, it's a prayer. Prayers do not inherently hurt anyone. And, again, it is very likely (actually it's inevitable) that Muslims either gain happiness from following these laws or gain unhappiness from not. Therefore, again, this is good.

C.)Third Pillar: Zakat, or alms-giving. This is the practice of giving based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all Muslims who can afford it. A fixed portion is spent to help the poor or needy. The zakat is considered a religious obligation

Unless someone has some crazy argument on why the poor shouldn't be fed and clothed, I'm pretty sure this makes them happier. Because this SAVES LIVES (of the poor) and makes the Muslims either happy or not unhappy, and does not cause pain/displeasure/unhappiness, it is also a good and moral thing to do.

D.)Fourth Pillar: Sawm, or fasting during the month of Ramadan. Muslims must not eat or drink (among other things) from dawn to dusk during this month, and must be mindful of other sins. The fast is to encourage a feeling of nearness to God, and during it Muslims should express their gratitude for and dependence on him, atone for their past sins, and think of the needy.

One could argue that fasting causes the person doing it displeasure, but because the pleasure of being close to their god (or even the prevention of social ostracism) outweighs it clearly increases happiness for the practitioner. Also, fasting does not hurt anyone else, and promotes bonding between families (more pleasure) it is clearly a good and moral thing to do.

E.)Fifth Pillar: The Hajj, which is the pilgrimage during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the city of Mecca. Every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it must make the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his or her lifetime. When the pilgrim is about ten kilometers from Mecca, he must dress in Ihram clothing, which consists of two white seamless sheets. Rituals of the Hajj include walking seven times around the Kaaba, touching the Black Stone, running seven times between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah, and symbolically stoning the Devil in Mina. The pilgrim, or the hajji, is honored in his or her community, although Islamic teachers say that the Hajj should be an expression of devotion to God instead of a means to gain social standing.

Yup, pilgrimage. This increases social standing (see above) and makes them happy for obeying their religious mandates (or fear of social ostracism if they don't) both increase happiness and are therefore good and moral.

I will now respond to my opponents claims:

First, the pro claims that Muhammad IS Islam... this is like saying that Abraham or Paul, or peter or the disciples in general ARE Christianity.

Also, if you want to compare religious figures, and bad stuff simply look to the Old Testament. I'm sure my opponent would not deem his own religion "evil" so if I can prove that the same problems exist in Christian writings (the bible) then all of his points flow to the con.

1.)Old Testament: We've got a lot of "bad" stuff happening here:
For example:
Genesis 34: the rape of Dinah.
For those who haven't read this story, Dinah is raped, and then the rapist falls in love w/ her. He asks for her hand in marriage and her father says ok on one condition, that his family gets circumcised. They agree, and when they are all still in pain from circumcision (it's painful if you didn't know) dinah's family attacks and slaughters everyone in the rapist's family and steals everything of value. THIS IS SEEN AS GOOD.

Genesis 33: Jacob meets Esau
Jacob has concubines... and he gives his wives and children away... to gain favor... and again, this is good.

The religion is NOT defined by its writing, but by its dictates. And, as I have shown, the 5 pillars of Islam all increase happiness or decrease pain, and none increase pain. Because of this they are moral, and therefore Islam is NOT evil.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Pro

Now, as I said, I don't want to offend anyone. If I accidentally did, I apologize. Sorry. However, I would like to thank you for accepting the debate.

Let me ask you, do you remeber the Danish cartoons of Muhammad?

A couple of quotes from the Qu'ran about the Kafir (non-Muslims):

"Take not the Jews nor the Christians as your friends or protectors."
"...*Slay the idolaters wherever you find them*... Take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...."
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle 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"
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
"Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion"

The Qu'ran about women:

"The share of the male shall be twice that of a female."
"Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house."
"And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (prisoners of war)."
"... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

There are many more passages like this in the Qu'ran, especially about the Jews.

I think that pretty much says it all. I would have a ton of arguments about Muhammad's life, but let's stick to the Qu'ran and the Surah.

The God of Islam, Allah, is according to the Qu'ran loving, merciful etc. Now, this is very illogical.

1. According to the Qu'ran, Allah is loving.
2. According to the Qu'ran, Allah wants all non-Muslims (especially Jews) dead.
3. Am I the only one who notices a slight problem here?

I'm not saying Muslims are bloodthirsty terrorists who want to blow us to pieces. I'm saying that Islam has some serious problems.

Remember before you respond, we're not debating about Muslims, but about the religion Islam.
Bnesiba

Con

No offence taken, but I think the "This religion is EVIL" is probably a little strong of a resolution to not be offensive to somebody.

Also, i will apologize in advance for the length of this argument. My arguments tend to go long, and i would implore anyone who is judging this round to PLEASE read my entire arguments before voting. thank you.

I will begin by defending my case, then moving to the remaining pro arguments.

RA: This was not disputed, therefore, if I can prove that the pro does not show immorality, you CANNOT vote pro.

Framework: This was also not disputed, therefore, when judging the morality of this round, both sides will be looking to the framework of utilitarianism.

Case:

My arguments about the positive morality of the 5 pillars and the examples from the bible of how many "prophets" and such act contrarily to today's morality were not disputed.

This means that you, as judges MUST accept that the 5 pillars increase happiness and therefore are moral.

You also must accept that my opponent would not decry his own religion as immoral, and yet, many people in the bible to morally reprehensible things. Because of this, you cannot judge morality by the acts of the "prophets" whose stories are told in the holy books.

Basically, my entire case was left untouched and flows con.

Onto the Pro:

First, I would like you, as judged to group all of his arguments and apply the following:

1.)you cannot look only to laws, but to actions.
This may, at first seem contradictory to my previous point, but what I am saying, is that we must look to the practitioners to tell what part of their "law" is still upheld. The pillars, for example, are still a major part, but, if you actually look at the world, it is clear that these extremist parts are very clearly NOT.

Every religion has these parts, look to Christianity.
We have many "laws" set out in Leviticus that even the Catholics no longer follow. For example:

Leviticus 11: 1-46 (It's like a page and a half long, so I will summarize. I know my opponent is a Christian, so it is likely he has a bible at home. Furthermore, I guarantee there are copies online)

Don't eat animals with divided hooves. Don't eat animals that chew the cud. Do not touch these animals or you will be unclean. Don't eat Eagles, owls, hawks, falcons, buzzards, vultures, crows, ostriches, seagulls, storks, herons, pelicans, cormorants, hoopoes, or bats.
Don't eat winged insects.
Moles rats and lizards are also unclean.
Anything they (any of the listed animals) touch is unclean.
Anything that water which has been in contact with these animals touches is also unclean. (if a bug falls in your water, and then you pour it on food while cooking, you're unclean)
Don't eat carrion.
Don't eat "small animals that move of the ground, whether they crawl, or walk on four legs, or have many legs."

Leviticus 15: 16
When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body, and he remains unclear until evening.

If these examples aren't enough, here's a much more extreme one:

Leviticus 24:10-16 (again, summarizing, look it up if you don't believe me)
A man named Shelomith, was half Egyptian half Israeli. He got in an argument with an Israelite, and, during the argument cursed the name of the lord.

They imprisoned him, and asked Moses what to do. He asked god and, god said to Moses: the the man out of the camp, have the people who saw it testify, then, stone him to death.

Yes... you STONE THE UNBELEIVERS!

The reason I am bringing all of these passages up, is because like Christianity, Islam has "laws" that they no longer see as applicable to modern times, and therefore no longer practice them. ( for Christians, Leviticus, for Muslims, the OMG JIHAD THE UNBELEIVERS! Laws. )

Also, if you look to the Old Testament, you will see hundreds of other laws and admissions that we now look on as immoral. Because of this, we MUST look to how the current practitioners practice their religion to judge it's morality.

Look to all the Muslims in the world, yes there are the few radicals who try to use these parts, but Christianity has these as well. The majority of Islam does not want to launch jihads against the unbelievers, and kill us in our sleep etc. In fact, I have a few Muslim friends, who are practicing Muslims, and yet, I talk to them, they respect women, and they don't go around killing everybody.

However, they DO follow the 5 pillars.

Because the 5 pillars are still seen as laws, my case still stands, while, as you can very clearly see, the pro case falls, simply because these "laws" are no longer looked to.

On the final Pro point:

1.According to the Bible, God is loving
2.According to the Bible, instead of trying to convert the world, he destroyed it in a massive flood. Also, according to the bible, He ordered the murder of someone who BELIEVED IN HIM, but, when angered used his name in vain.
3. Am I the only one who notices a slight problem here? (Heh... =P )

The Qu'ran Is like the bible, there were parts written at different times. Because of this, like the bible, you can end up with different interpretations of what God/Allah wants. (god demands that we stone people who use his name in vain apparently....)
It is likely, that most Muslims now believe that like the Christian god, he wants them converted, not dead. And, those who do not convert, will be punished in the afterlife.

My opponent would have us look only to religious texts to find out the morality of a religion. We must NOT do this because many parts of these religious texts are no longer seen as laws, and are not acted upon. We must, instead, look to how most modern Muslims act and see which "laws" they still see as requirements.

As I stated before, the 5 pillars are still seen as requirements, while, the laws against women, and unbelievers are empirically NOT.

Because of this, the pro case falls, while the con is still strong. I have proven how the Muslim faith promotes happiness and decreases pain, while my opponent has yet to say the word "happiness" or "pain" IN order to affirm (vote pro) the pro MUST show how Islam violates the framework of utilitarianism. I have shown that it does not.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
hauki20

Pro

Thank you. Now, I know that the five pillars are not morally wrong. I am perfectly aware of that. However, the rest is a little... interesting.

~You also must accept that my opponent would not decry his own religion as immoral, and yet, many people in the bible to morally reprehensible things. Because of this, you cannot judge morality by the acts of the "prophets" whose stories are told in the holy books.~

Okay. Forget about my argument of Muhammad's actions. I agree with you perfectly on this one. Moving on.

~Every religion has these parts, look to Christianity.
We have many "laws" set out in Leviticus that even the Catholics no longer follow. For example: [A very long list of Jewish laws (notice Jewish, not Christian)]~

Okay. First of all, as a Christian, I suppose you know that when Jesus came, these laws were immediately out-dated. There are tens of passages in the OT and NT which prove that the laws in the Old (notice the word *old*) Testament are not valid anymore to Christians. Jews follow these rules, less or more. We as Christians, however, don't obey the Jewish law. We follow the example and teachings of Jesus. To summarize: Any law in the OT is not followed by Christians. Rules (notice the word rule, not law) in the NT are followed, more or less. If you can find a passage like that in the NT, not the OT, I will agree with you. Until then...

~1.)you cannot look only to laws, but to actions.~

Okay. I would like to make this point even clearer. We are NOT debating about Muslims, but about ISLAM. Not the believers, but the religion itself. To phrase it otherwise: This argument is not valid because we are not debating about Islam.

~Also, if you look to the Old Testament, you will see hundreds of other laws and admissions that we now look on as immoral.~

As I just said, these laws are only followed by Jews. Not by Christians. The laws in the Qu'ran, however, are in fact followed by Muslims.

~The Qu'ran Is like the bible, there were parts written at different times. Because of this, like the bible, you can end up with different interpretations of what God/Allah wants.~

Well, you see, The Bible was written during many millenniums. The Qu'ran was written by the followers of Muhammad. The Qu'ran has some parts directly stolen from OT/NT, but mostly it is a book of its own. The Qu'ran was written during a hundred or so years by the Arabs who had listened to Muhammad.

~1.According to the Bible, God is loving
2.According to the Bible, instead of trying to convert the world, he destroyed it in a massive flood. Also, according to the bible, He ordered the murder of someone who BELIEVED IN HIM, but, when angered used his name in vain.
3. Am I the only one who notices a slight problem here? (Heh... =P )~

OT.

~As I stated before, the 5 pillars are still seen as requirements, while, the laws against women, and unbelievers are empirically NOT.~

When is the last time you turned on the television and looked at the news? Just yesterday, I heard on the news that a Muslim man had beheaded his wife because she wanted a divorce. Same happened to another couple who had agreed to show the "peaceful" side of Islam. His wife wants a divorce and off goes her head. Kind of strange.

Look at Saudi-Arabia. There the Shari'ah law is the only law. I can send you a video that show the executioners of the GOVERMENT killing people with a sword and cutting off the hand of a women. I can also show you a video where an EIGHT year old boy in Iran stole bread and was caught. The verdict, according to Shari'ah: His hand was cut off using a car. They drove a car over his arm. He is a small and helpless child! And Islam is a religion of peace and justice?
In a Muslim country, a woman was stoned and slashed with a whip to death because she had committed adultery. The verdict according to Shari'ah: Like I said, she was given many slashes and was later stoned to death. I have a video of that, too.
According to the Qu'ran, it is completely admissible for a man to beat up his wife as much as he wants when he wants, provided that:

1) No blood is spilt.
2) No bones are crushed.

If a man chooses to do this in a Muslim country, it is impossible for her to get a divorce or sue his husband.

Once a woman was raped and beaten up. The judgment according to Shari'ah: The man got away with no punishment and the woman was given 80 slashes. She filed a complaint about the verdict. The result according to Shari'ah: 200 slashes. I have a video of that, too.

In a Muslim country, two gay teenagers were hanged publicly. I have pictures and a video to prove it.

Theo van Goch makes a ten minute film "Submission" that tells the story of a woman who is beaten by her husband. He received death threats, and soon was shot and stabbed to death.

The Danish Cartoons. Hundreds of thousands of outraged Muslims were threatening to:

- Nuke the whole western world.

What they did:

- Beheaded schoolchildren
- Bombed embassies
- Killed many people

Prior to that, Muslims:

- Beheaded three teenage girls because their heads were not covered, no Muslim outrage.
- Officials didin't let schoolgirls out of a burning building because their faces were showing, no Muslim outrage.
- Muslims fly airplanes into skyscrapers, killing thousands of Americans, no Muslims outrage.
- Muslims bomb schools in Israel with rocket propelled granades, no Muslims outrage.
- Muslims murder teachers in Iraq, no Muslims outrage.
- Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons, no Muslims outrage.

And then all of a sudden, all of a sudden, when Danish newspapers publish a cartoon of Muhammad, Muslims get O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D.

Okay, sorry. I got a little off-topic. Forget about the couple of rows above.

Back to Islam.

Some videos to back up my points.

-Wife beatings in Islam
http://www.truthtube.tv... -The 8 yr. old boy who was caught stealing bread in Iran

~As I stated before, the 5 pillars are still seen as requirements, while, the laws against women, and unbelievers are empirically NOT.~

1) They are.
2) We're not debating about Muslims, but about Islam.

The Shari'ah law, which is based on the teachings of Muhammad, tells everything there needs to be said about the cruel laws in the Qu'ran.
Bnesiba

Con

1.) "Now, I know that the five pillars are not morally wrong"

I'm they're morally GOOD. My opponent is trying to discredit them by making them morally neutral, which they are not.

2.) "Don't Look at Old Testament"

I have a very simple question. "If the Old Testament was instantly thrown aside (the whole thing) when Jesus came around, the WHY IS IT STILL PART OF THE BIBLE?"
Very simply, the Old Testament is still applicable in many cases. In fact, many people still argue gay rights, evolution and MANY other things based on the Old Testament. (In fact, the Catholics use Leviticus to say gays are evil)

Basically, what my opponent is trying to say is: "oh, you can't look to parts of the bible that could hurt my position because Jesus fixed all that" " of course you can still look to the rest of the old testament, as well as the laws in Leviticus that we DO use, just not anything that helps you're position"

The simple fact is, the Old Testament is STILL relevant. For example, where were the 10 commandments in the bible? The Old Testament.

Because the Old Testament is still applicable to CHRISTIANS, because we ignore many of the laws from this part of the bible, and because Christianity is a morally ‘good' religion, it only follows that you MUST look to the parts of the Qu'ran that are actually followed, not all of the written parts. (I will come back to this argument later)

3.) "NOT debating about Muslims, but about ISLAM."

In order to debate about Islam, we MUST look to Muslims. As with Christianity, there are laws that we do not follow written in our religious texts. We do not judge Christianity on the arguments I posted previously, because we no longer follow those laws. (We looked to modern Christians to see this.) In order to know what the actual laws of a religion are, the only way is to look at the followers. (In this case, Muslims)

4.) "The laws in the Qu'ran, however, are in fact followed by Muslims."

This is Empirically Untrue. Every religion has its extremist's but if you look to a majority of Muslims, you will see that many of these laws are becoming or are obsolete.
For example, take Iraq. Iraq is a predominantly Muslim country, and yet, the number of attacks against the "infidel" are almost 0 now, they're becoming capitalist, and women are gaining more rights.

Or, look to American Muslims. I am friends with a few, and have yet to be killed, shunned, or converted... and yet, they are followers, and are very devout in their practice.

Even in Saudi Arabia:
The incidence my opponent has provided may or may not have happened, due to the fact that he has no source, but, even if they are true, these are very limited incidence, that happened in the past. Even in Saudi Arabia, (which is openly trading with the infidels by the way) no longer follows many of these laws. People are allowed to change religious, and there is, for the most part, religious acceptance. (Extremists do occasionally cause problems) The simple fact that they are not at war with us, and are trading with us shows that these laws are no longer followed.

5.) "The Bible was written during many millenniums. The Qu'ran was written by the followers of Muhammad."

First of all, technically, b/c there are parts from the OT, it is also thousands of years old....
But, it was also written by different people, and therefore has many different interpretations of what god wants.

Before I go on, Group all of his points and apply:

6.) "Shari'ah law."

First, I would like to point out that Muhammad is and has been very dead for some time now... The people upholding Shari'ah law are not divine or even godly. THEY ARE HUMAN, and therefore open to mis-understandings.

Look to the crusades, Christians justified these with the bible, and yet, they were later looked at as wrong.

Look to all of the anti-african American sentiment and mistreatment in the US's past. MANY very religious Christians believed that this was an acceptable thing to do, and was even good.

Basically, Shari'ah law is no different from all of these other examples, and yet, my opponent tries to use this to "evilize" Islam, while ignoring the fact that Christianity does the same thing.

Finally, Muslim outrage has nothing to do with anything, Even if all the followers were hypocritical, this would have no impact on the debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
hauki20

Pro

~My opponent is trying to discredit them by making them morally neutral, which they are not.~

Okay, they are moral. It doesn't prove anything, for or against.

~I have a very simple question. "If the Old Testament was instantly thrown aside (the whole thing) when Jesus came around, the WHY IS IT STILL PART OF THE BIBLE?"~

Although it's a part of the Bible, we don't have the rules set in the OT. They are for Jews, not Christians. Jesus said that it is not our actions that matter but our faith. And by the way, this is still off-topic.

~Basically, what my opponent is trying to say is: "oh, you can't look to parts of the bible that could hurt my position because Jesus fixed all that" " of course you can still look to the rest of the old testament, as well as the laws in Leviticus that we DO use, just not anything that helps you're position"~

Tell me how many Christians have stoned their children because they are disobedient (for the reason that the OT says so, not just for fun)? None? 0,00000000000000000000001%? As I said, the laws in the OT are for Jews. And by the way, this is STILL off-topic.

~In order to debate about Islam, we MUST look to Muslims. As with Christianity, there are laws that we do not follow written in our religious texts. We do not judge Christianity on the arguments I posted previously, because we no longer follow those laws. (We looked to modern Christians to see this.) In order to know what the actual laws of a religion are, the only way is to look at the followers. (In this case, Muslims)~

No, we are debating about the RELIGION, not the followers of the religion. If the topic would be "Muslims are evil" (which they are not), then we would debate about Muslims. Voters, please note when my opponent goes ott-topic and remember it when you vote.

Let my make myself clear: Muslims are off-topic, Christians are off-topic, the Bible is off-topic, the Jews are off-topic. We are debating about the RELIGION of Islam. We aren't debating about how many Muslims follow the laws, but whether or not there are evil laws established in the Qu'ran.

~First, I would like to point out that Muhammad is and has been very dead for some time now... The people upholding Shari'ah law are not divine or even godly. THEY ARE HUMAN, and therefore open to mis-understandings.~

Okay. Some people opened the Qu'ran and looked at what Muhammad said. If he said "An adulterer shall be stoned", then that is the law. The Shari'ah is based on the Qu'ran&Sunnah. Period. Nothing else.

~First of all, technically, b/c there are parts from the OT, it is also thousands of years old....
But, it was also written by different people, and therefore has many different interpretations of what god wants.~

No, the writers of the Qu'ran copied some parts from the NT and OT and invented the rest.

~This is Empirically Untrue. Every religion has its extremist's but if you look to a majority of Muslims, you will see that many of these laws are becoming or are obsolete.~

Live in Saudi-Arabia for a year and you will understand what I'm trying to say.

~Look to the crusades, Christians justified these with the bible, and yet, they were later looked at as wrong.~

I'm sure it was really easy to justify just by looking at OT. The NT says the exact opposite. This, too, is off-topic.

~Finally, Muslim outrage has nothing to do with anything, Even if all the followers were hypocritical, this would have no impact on the debate.~

You see, you yourself admit that the actions of Muslims have nothing to do with this debate. So, as you said yourself, we're going to debate about Islam, not how the laws are being applied. Case closed.

~Look to all of the anti-african American sentiment and mistreatment in the US's past. MANY very religious Christians believed that this was an acceptable thing to do, and was even good.~

Am I the only one who notices this is off-topic? And still, it doesn't matter what the followers do. It matters what the religion says.

And now... Here are some verses from the Qu'ran (excluding the ones about women and stuff like that).

2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."

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 God knoweth and ye know not."

2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."

3:157-158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."

3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."

4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."

4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…"

4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war ... he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed)."

8:59-60 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know ..."

9:5 "...fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem..."
Bnesiba

Con

Ok, I'm going to make this short and to the point.

Refutation:

<>

well... it appears that all of the negative ground it off topic...

ALL OF THIS IS RELEVENT for the following reasons:

1.)We both agreed that Christianity IS a moral (good) religion.

2.)the bible has these nice parts that say go kill the guys who don't believe.... (or who curse god)

3.)yet, It still remains moral. DO NOT let my opponent tell you this is because of the OT/NT split. If he does that, he will be contradicting himself by looking not to the religion as he wants, but to how the practitioners practice.

4.)For the same reasons, Islam is good.

a.)If Christianity is good and has all that bad stuff in it (the only argument against all the bad things I name was "doesn't matter"), we certainly cannot claim Islam is evil for having similar stuff in it.

b.)if we recognize Christianity is good because we no longer follow those rules, you must accept the point of my case: that Muslims in developed countries do not follow these laws.

c.)We need to look to the most developed countries, because in less developed countries, religious are more likely to mutate to meet the motivational needs of the current dictator or resistance group. For example, Christianity in Africa was used to fuel a violent rebellion.

d.)because Muslims in developed countries ignore these parts of their religious texts much like we ignore parts of the old testament, you can see that because I have provided the laws they do follow (5 pillars) and shown how they are moral (aff agreed) we can see that Islam very easily increases happiness and decrees pain.

5.)Discrediting everything but the religious texts is ridiculous.
Religious texts and religion are NOT the same thing. There were religions even in places without a written language. The ONLY way to know what a religious actually is, is to observe the religion and how it is practiced in developed nations.

6.)To prove that Muslims in developed countries to NOT follow these rules, simply go to school and talk to one.
As I have stated before, I have a Muslim friend. He is a practicing Muslim, who is planning his trip to Mecca. However, he treats everyone (even women) nicely, and, overall, is one of the nicest people I know. I haven't been killed, or attacked or anything and I know he isn't sexist. So, if you need any more evidence, talk to a Muslim from our country, almost ALL of them will agree that those laws are no longer practiced.

Conclusion:
Judges, because I have shown how Islam is moral, how, in comparison to Christianity, which is defined as good, it is no worse, and how Muslims in the most developed countries (which we need to look to, and the best examples of which would be the G8 countries) no longer follow all of the "evil" laws my opponent has shown, you cannot vote aff. (His "case" falls completely)

Finally I would also like to point out that my opponent has yet to show that anything he's said has any impact on happiness/pain which is our measurement of morality for this round. Because he fails in this, you have no choice but to vote con. If you look to the definition of evil, my analysis of the resolution, as well as my framework for morality (which was never agued, and therefore is accepted) you see that in order to affirm the resolution the aff MUST show how happiness is completely destroyed.

Because this was NEVER mentioned, and because my opponent never evened mentioned the word "moral" in any of his "speeches" you can not affirm because he has not shown immorality. (look to analysis of resolution, which I pulled through every speech, and which was never touched by my opponent, because he does not show immorality, affirming is IMPOSSIBLE)

Judges:
If you plan to vote on this debate, please read every round and follow the progression of the debate. Also, I would ask that, no matter which way you vote, that you provide a reason for decision in the comments section. Thank you.

For the above reasons, I urge you to vote CON.

Thank you hauki20 for starting this debate, even if you are a crazy radical. :P It was fun.
Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
you seem to be very ignorant. Do research, and let me put this out there: the Qura'an won't make you insane, it is worth the money and time spent reading it, and it will teach you the knowledge that you are so severely lacking
Posted by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
2) Actually, I am. Sure, I haven't read the Qu'ran cover to cover (because I value money, time and my sanity) But ignoring the quotes I provided, here's something interesting. In the Qu'ran: Muhammed had no problem w/female cirsumscision, pedophilia... (char. lim.)
3) So you admit that you cannot contest my point that Muhammed was an extremely evil man and instead say Muhammed is not equal to Islam? Well, theoretically that's correct to say. However, what you don't seem to get is that the *teachings* uttered by Muhammed = Islam.

But to further illustrate my point, did you know that Muhammed has sex with a 9 year old... (char. lim.)

4) Ignoring for the moment that you mentioned you would explain "a couple of things" and only explained one, I don't think you are telling the truth. Now, I haven't read the Qu'ran but I can say that statement such as: "Polygamy is only ok during wartime" would be so illogical it would contradict your statement: "Islam is based on knowledge and resoning." First of all, if something is wrong it's wrong. And the second point, which really shows what kind of sh*tty a moral teaching like that would be. So let's say there is a war. A man marries ten women. And after a couple of years the war is over. What happens then? It would be very unloving and cold to divorce 9 of the women (or all of them), but if the man doesn't divorce, he'll be breaking the teaching: "Polygamy is only acceptable during wartime." Now, I'm not sure, but I think that in Islam divorce is wrong (although, since it is a religion that oppresses women pretty da** much, it's hard to tell.) So, if you divorce, you break the women's hearts and possibly the teachings of Qu'ran but if you don't, you still break the teachings of Qu'ran. And why did Mo have polygamy all of his life, even at peace?

Have you noticed how much muslims are willing to oppress freedom of speech? (Draw Muhammed Day, Jyllands-Posten cartoons)?

I prbly won't reply since I have a lot of **** to ir
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
i have not read through the comments, or the entire debate. Notwithstanding, I have the following comments
1) thank you Bnesiba for taking this debate even as a non-Muslim, and representing Muslims so commendably. You debated very well.
2) Hauki, I'm sure you aren't very educated about Islam. The quotes that you gave from the Qura'an are quotes that many use to make the religion seem down. But these are always taken out of context. If you read everything in the chapter, it will make sense. For example, in the Qura'an it says (somewhere, to paraphrase) "Find the non-believers, wherever the are, and slay them". (again, this is to paraphrase.) The thing is, in the few sentences immediately before that, it says, (again, to paraphrase) "If the non-believers attack your land or your people, be prepared to defend yourself."
3) Like Bnesiba very logically pointed out, Muhammad is not Islam.
4) Islam is based on knowledge and reasoning, so let me explain a few of the things you put out there. The issue of polygamy: During wartime, many men die (obviously). This means that women are left without a partner, or a man to sustain them/keep them alive with revenue. So, in the Qura'an, it is permissible to have multiple wives during times of war in order to keep women out of poverty. Makes sense right?
Oh, and always provide sources, Hauki, for your arguments/points of interest. It is important.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Puck,
I guess it appeared you did not understand.
The criminal system and mass murder all of those things are "breaking" the Golden rule and thus prove the morality(that which is good or evil) by the very concept.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Leethal,
I would recommend you read the myths that predate Christ's Advent. That will clarify them for you that will show you there are not these supposed similiarities.
But that website address the zeitgeist claims. There are sites now that make more claims like the one you posted. You will find most of them to be lies the others to be comparisons.
Simply put that information does not exist in the myths. You will have to read them for yourself. It looks nice in a chart but its all falsified.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Puck, Were you not claiming the similarities of the other gods show that Christianity is rooted in those religions and that the other ones were first?"

Eh no, former point I never engaged in and have no real care about in that manner, latter only in regards to the golden rule - to indicate there was nothing particualy unique nor special about its form.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Galiban,
That link you provided doesn't discount any of the similarities between Jesus and Horus. Please re-read my link, note the 50 or so similarities, then prove to me that they are false.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Puck,
Were you not claiming the similarities of the other gods show that Christianity is rooted in those religions and that the other ones were first?

When I do the same thing why am I wrong?

Zeitgeist is not wrong because massive similarities exist, if that was the end of it then they would have a very strong argument. It is why so many people today use Zeitgiest still. It is a powerful argument.

The problem is the similarities in the movie are outright lies. They are not true and not real.

Also Creationists take issue with the dating methods entirely, they are arbitrarily assumed methods and dates. If you study the science you see the flaws. Most people just defend the science without studying it.

Did you reread the Post to understand the Golden rule and why your response to it was not accurate?
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Puck, the Jewish God is claimed to be the oldest God. All religions that have similarities come from the first worship system of Adam and Eve."

That's just nonsensical. :) Simply becase someone can roughly draw similarities between religions is not equitable with asserting their foundation. See world tree images. :)

Oldest would have to be first and African artifacts pre date by far.
http://www2.canada.com...
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Puck, the Jewish God is claimed to be the oldest God. All religions that have similarities come from the first worship system of Adam and Eve.

Just to show that the religion becomes perverted by man over time, we have 5000 Christian denominations. Shinto religion was originally Jewish from the Diaspora etc. There are Jewish Cultures throughout Asia.

http://www5.ocn.ne.jp...

Even Quezicotl is remeniscent of Christianity on the surface with the expectation of a returning god on the clouds. It was started by a white man with a beard that came on a boat around 300 A.D.

Understanding religion changes over time is something people spend their lives studying. Though you can find a few Scholars that might put forth the concept you propose they cannot back it up with information. Judaism has more world saturation than any other religion from Ancient times.

Unlike Zeitgeist these similarities are actually not made up and are really in both religions. All origins are from Adam and Eve's first worship up to Shem, then continuing with the Jews, then the Savior of Mankind.

Also puck do you see how you misread the evaluator?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
hauki20BnesibaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Russiannovember 8 years ago
Russiannovember
hauki20BnesibaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
hauki20BnesibaTied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
hauki20BnesibaTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by HyePhilosopher 8 years ago
HyePhilosopher
hauki20BnesibaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
hauki20BnesibaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
hauki20BnesibaTied
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:07