The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Islam is inherently a religion of peace

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,082 times Debate No: 75830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (3)




R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3-5: Rebuttals

Islam is (or is not) a religion that breeds peace and coexistence.

I am against that statement: Islam doesn't breed peace or coexistence.



I thank Pro for instigating this debate, I accept his challenge, & I too hope this will prove to be an interesting debate.


- Topic:
wether Islam is, or is not, a religion that promotes peace & coexistence.

- Terminology:

> Religion = scripture, law, theology, & thought.

> Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an.

> Promote = encourage, advocate, advance, foster, nurture, develop. . .

> Peace, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it broadly as = a state of freedom from injustice or oppression. It must thus considered distinctly different from ‘pacifism’.

> Coexistence = to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy [*].


- No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation.

- BOF:
the burden of proof is shared.

> Con’s negative case:

{ Islam Is Not A Religion That Promotes Peace & Coexistence. }

> Pro’s affirmative case:

{ Islam Is A Religion That Promotes Peace & Coexistence. }

- Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.


Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro.

Pro laid down rules for my debate, which I find a bit presumptuous on his part, but that’s beside the point. Let’s get to opening arguments.

Islam is a religion that inherently promotes intolerance, hatred and violence.

Before we get any farther let me make it clear that I do not claim all Muslims promote those things. I don’t claim that even a majority of Muslims are violent or are hateful. What I am saying is that the fundamental truths of Islam promote hateful things. I also do not claim that Islam is the only religion that promotes violence. I am equally against Christianity. Now onto my arguments.

When you find an extremist or a fundamentalist Jain (and they do exist), you find a person who meditates constantly. You find a person who is crippled by the fear of not harming a single creature; be it stepping on a bug, or eating a piece of meat. Extremist Jain pluck the hairs from their head and wander the wilderness naked in order to renounce all material things and find enlightenment.

Now take an extremist or a fundamentalist in Islam. You find widespread female genital mutilation, you find wives as young as nine years old dying on their wedding night, you get people who blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces, etc. etc.

They both take a fundamentalist view of their respective ancient doctrine, however, the actions each fundamentalist takes differ drastically. If Islam truly promoted peace and harmony, why is such violence and intolerance routinely interpreted by fundamentalists? You can be a moderate Jain. You can go to work, be productive, be a good citizen and meditate ‘on the side’. Just like you can be a moderate Muslim who holds a good job, greets coworkers with a smile, etc. etc. The difference shows when they go extreme and take literal views.

First an analysis of the Prophet himself:

A study of Muhammad, the messenger of Allah and the main figurehead of Islam strikes another key difference. While Gautama Buddha was supposedly an enlightened man who rejected the riches of a prince, Muhammad was a wealthy warlord who conquered Arabia. He spread Islam by the sword, and repeatedly encouraged his followers to do the same. According to the ancient Muslim historian Tabari, he had nicknames like “Death” for his weapons, and named himself al-Mahi, the obliterator.

He took as many as thirteen or more wives for himself over his life, and spent his later years married to multiple women; up to eleven at one time, the youngest of which he married at age seven and whom he deflowered at age nine while he was fifty-three (Muslim 8:3309). Not to mention the multitude of concubines/sex slaves he took. For example, the occasion in which Muhammad was caught sleeping with Maria the Copt when he should have been with his wife, and his convenient revelation from Allah, "Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.” (Quran 66:5).

Muhammad had the capability to be absolutely brutal. The neutral Qurayzah tribe (from whom his youngest wife [at this time at age seven] was taken) was decimated by the Muslims after looking like they might attack (even though they did not) (Quran 33:26). Tabari says that 600-900 Jewish men were slaughtered because of this, while the Sunan Abu Dawud simply says that all the men were killed. The women and children were taken as slaves. (Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665)

If the central figurehead of Islam promoted such acts and acted in such a barbaric way to say that his behavior doesn’t affect the legacy or tradition of Islam is just foolish. For example, an interview conducted with the Charlie Hebdo gunman Cherif Kouachi, who specially said he committed his brutal attack to defend Muhammad. “But we are not killers. We are defenders of the prophet. We don’t kill women, we don’t kill anyone. We defend the prophet. If someone offend the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him.” If these men were extremist Jain they would be meditating in the woods. (

Second, a study of commands given by Muhammad/Allah for unbelievers

Not only was Muhammad himself violent, he issued many violent, intolerant commands. From the Quran: (9:29) “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

In which Christians should be subjugated to forcible conversion. 9:33 makes it clear, “He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”

Lest Pro be tempted to say it is all metaphorical, I would like to quote from the Quran again (8:12-13) “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Messenger; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Messenger-- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

These kinds of verses appear 109 times all throughout the Quran plus additional verses from the Hadith.

Islam makes a very bold claim for itself: that it is the only true religion and that Muhammad is the last prophet there will ever be. It also makes it clear that the Quran is the verbatim word of god. In fact it says in the Quran (9:30) “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

This is not a message of peace and understanding. This is a message of intolerance! “may Allah destroy them”. We can go back to the interview with the Charlie Hebdo gunman. He is backed up by Islamic teaching when he says that those who offend the prophet are to be killed. From the Quran (5:33): The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned...”

Third, a study of rules inside the Muslim community

Apostasy is death in Islam. It’s not metaphorical and it can’t be shooed away. From the Hadith Bukhari (52:260) “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him’”. It couldn’t be clearer than that. From the Quran (4:89) “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them...”

As was common for Iron Age wisdom, woman aren’t respected in Islam. For example, from the Quran (4:11) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females”. Which is why a man’s testimony is twice what a woman’s testimony is in court; from the Quran (2:282) “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.”

Or take the overtly sexual verse from the Quran (2:223) “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will...” which compares wives to farmland. From the Hadith (Al-Tirmidhi 3272), “When Allah's Messenger was asked which woman was best he replied, 'The one who pleases (her husband) when he looks at her, obeys him when he gives a command, and does not go against his wishes regarding her person or property by doing anything of which he disapproves'.”




- It should be noted that Con has not contested the definitions & rules laid out in the opening round, thus we’re in argument on how this debate should be conducted.

- Con also used virtually no sources, which makes his references & claims unverifiable. Thus, I shall for now discard these references & claims, most of which are utterly false, until they are properly sourced.


- To establish that Islam is a religion that promotes Peace & Coexistence, amongst Muslims & non-Muslims, I am gonna divide my case into 5 parts which will eventually build up to the conclusion I intend to make:

Part I: the Message of Islam.

Part II: the Teachings of Islam.

Part III: the Example of the Prophet.

Part IV: non-Muslim in Islam.

Part V: Just War in Islam.

- This configuration serves the purpose of maintaining an organised method through my case, such that we won’t get lost between the seeming contradictions of Peace/War within Islam.

Part I: the Message of Islam

The message of Islam is universal:

- Islam was founded to be a universal message for all mankind & for all times:

* “Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds” (81: 27) [*].

=> We shall thus explore how this concept of universality translates into the real world, & see if it is compatible with Peace or against it.

The message of Islam is Equality amongst Mankind:

- Islam is unambiguously clear about the Unity of Humanity, in that it unequivocally declares:

1. Equality, of birth, of all mankind:

* “Every child is born in the state of Fitrah (equal among all mankind)” the Prophet [1].

2. Equality, in humanity, amongst all mankind:

* “Humans are equal, like a set of a tooth-comb” “there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety” the Prophet [2].

3. Essential Dignity for all members of the human race:

* "Verily we have honoured/dignified the Children of Adam (Mankind)." (17:70) [*].

=> This aspect of Islam, as it stems from it universal nature, lays very strong foundation for a universal Tolerance, thus Peace, which we will explore even further on.

The message of Islam is Brotherhood amongst Muslims:

- Islam ordains brotherhood among all Muslims:

1. Between themselves:

* “A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. He should neither deceive him nor lie to him, nor leave him without assistance. Everything belonging to a Muslim is inviolable for a Muslim; his honour, his blood and property.” the Prophet [3].

2. As a whole community:

* ”The believers in their mutual kindness, compassion and sympathy are just like one body. When one of the limbs suffers, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever” the Prophet [4].

=> This brotherhood, enjoining kindness, compassion, sympathy & assistance, & also equally banning injustice & oppression amongst its members, individually & as a whole, is a proof of the inherent & fundamental peaceful nature of the message of Islam, amongst Muslims, & also with non-Muslims, as we’ll see shortly.

The message of Islam is Tolerance with non-Muslims:

- It has been established that Islam unequivocally calls for the equality & dignity of all human beings, whatever their affiliations or status, including Muslims & non-Muslims alike. & this fundamental nature is the primary aspect of Tolerance enjoined in Islam on Muslims towards non-Muslims. This expands to other equally important aspects which Muslims believe in:

1. Qur’anic decree of difference, in Religion, amongst Mankind:

i. That it is a divine decree to which God predestined Mankind:

* ”And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ." (11:117) [*].

ii. That this divine decree must be accepted in submission to God's Will:

* ”And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" (10:99) [*].

* ”So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them." (88:21-22) [*].

iii. That this decree must extend to our practice the same way it is ordained in our belief:

* ”There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) [*].

2. Absence of responsibility for calling into account non-Muslims about their disbelief:

i. Each person is responsible & accountable only for his own beliefs & actions:

* ”Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." (17:15) [*].

ii. The best Muslims can do is remind non-Muslims, without transgressing that limit:

* ”So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them." (88:21-22) [*].

iii. Only God has the final say between Muslims & Non-Muslims & that is beyond the Human's scope:

* ”Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ." (22:69) [*].

3. Justice & Mercy must prevail in dealing with non-Muslims:

* "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity." (60:8) [*].

Part II: the Teachings of Islam

Islam teaches Mercy for all beings:

1. For All:

* * “The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” the Prophet [5].

2. For Mankind:

* “He will enter Heaven only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind.” the Prophet [6].

3. For Animals:

* "Do not take any living creature as a target.” the Prophet [7]

* “There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” the Prophet [8].

* "There was a dog moving around a well whom thirst would have killed, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” the Prophet [9].

4. For Nature:

* "Eat and drink from the provision of Allah , and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." (2:60) [*].

* "If anyone cuts a tree (with no just cause), Allah brings him headlong into Hell.” the Prophet [10].

Islam teaches Noble Character above all:

- It is no secret that one of the most emphasised & most praised instructions in Islam is the nobility of character towards everyone & in everything

* “Those who spend [in Allah's Cause - deeds of charity, alms, etc.] in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon men; verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun (the good-doers).” (3:134) [*].

* "The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.” the Prophet [11]

* “none of you has believed until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself of goodness.” [12].

>> To be continued >>



[2] /



[5] /








Debate Round No. 2


It seems that Pro has decided to completely ignore using the format that I laid out in Round 1.

Round 1 was to be for acceptance.

Round 2 was to be for arguments.

Rounds 3 to 5 were to be for rebuttal.

It was made very clear in the opening round how the debate was to be structured. At no point did I concede to altering the structure of this debate, and at no point did Pro make any attempt at asking if the debate format could be changed.

Pro simply changed the rules for his own gain; to have 5 rounds of his continuing argument. Pro has continued to act as though the debate was of his own design, which it was not. We are not “in argument”.

Your format was not agreed upon, you never contacted me to agree upon such a drastic change in my opening format and therefore you forfeit the debate.



Thanks Con.


Structure of the debate:

- As Con pointed out, the structure of the debate is as follows:

> R1: Acceptance.

> R2: Arguments.

> R3 to R5: Rebuttals.

- Apparently, Con is falsely accusing me of violating the debate structure, here:

> My R1: acceptance, no arguments & no rebuttals.

> My R2: arguments, no rebuttals.

> My R3: the current one, which will indeed consist of rebuttals.

- On the other hand, Con has clearly violated his own debate structure rules:

> Con’s R3: no rebuttals!

Rules of the debate:

- As for the rules I laid out in my opening round, they are standard to any debate & valid by default:

1. Good Grammar.

2. Decent Conduct, which means no disrespect & no forfeiture.

2. Sound Arguments, which means no logical fallacies, particularly the more common: bare assertions & shotgun argumentation.

3. Reliable Sources, which means no unreliable (inauthentic or non-authoritative) sources.

- Thus, unless Con is planning to forfeit, be disrespectful, resort to logical fallacies & use unreliable sources, then he should be fine. & if he decides to do any of that, he should be penalised by the voters, regardless if I had emphasised these rules in my R1 or not.

=> Finally, the only one here who violated virtually all rules, those laid out by Con & those by default, is Con himself. He violated the structure of the debate, practically forfeited his R3, resorted to logical fallacies (most of his case is a series of bare assertions, & in shotgun argumentation) & he used virtually no sources, let alone reliable ones. Whereas I, Pro, violated zero rules.


- In this section I will attempt to refute Con’s arguments, as priorly declared, in parts, as a continuation of my previous round.

- Although Con’s case is largely -false- bare assertions, it is nonetheless expressed in the following format:

I. Analysis of the Prophet’s alleged ‘brutality’, ‘violence’. . .

II. Analysis of some the Prophet’s seemingly violent commands relating to war & towards non-Muslims.

III. Analysis of the some of the rules concerning Muslims, apostates & women particularly, which, according to him, are not peaceful!

- Thus, following the pattern of argumentation Con used, my rebuttal shall deal with its elements in either to both of the following manners:

1. Show that Con’s claims are contradicted, thus requiring proof for their validity.

2. Show that Con’s claims are misrepresented or misinterpreted.


- My rebuttal to Con’s case (I. II. & III.) will thus proceed as expected:

Part II: the Teachings of Islam.

Part III: the Example of the Prophet.

Part IV: non-Muslims in Islam.

Part V: Just War in Islam.

- As stated before, this configuration serves the purpose of keeping things organised. Before we continue, there are two important points that should be noted:

i. Con has not mentioned any reliable sources for his long bold claims:

- What this entails is that Con’s case should be considered a series of bare assertions (for the most part), thus not fulfilling the BOP required.

ii. Con reserved to himself the authority to interpret the Qur’an & the Hadith:

- The problem with this approach is that it could be easily dismissed for the following reasons:

1. The Qur’an is in Classical Arabic, a supremely sophisticated one at that, & Con evidently does not know it. Making up judgements on a mere translation of the Qur’an can’t possibly serve as evidence for or against the original version.

2. The Qur’an’s verses are related to the context in which they are situated, ignoring the context will surely distort the meaning. Take for example this text: “Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union” [13] taken out of context from the US Constitution. Surely, if not well contextualised & well understood, the quote will sound to someone unfamiliar like it is promoting violence.

3. The verses of the Qur’an are also related to the context of circumstances in which they were revealed, discarding these circumstances will too prove detrimental to the intended meaning. Consider for instance this passage of the French Constitution: “L’anarchie est un passage effrayant, mais necessaire, et c’est le seul moment où l’on peut arriver à un nouvel ordre des choses.” (“Anarchy is a frightening but necessary passage, and the only moment when one can establish a new order of things”) [14]. Not understanding the circumstantial context in which such passages surged is a serious impairment to the Constitution that contains them as whole, in this example, the consequences could be devastating.

4. The authority of explaning the Qur’an is primarily given to the Prophet, “We have sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Message [the Qur’an]; that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them” (16:44) [*]. Thus, one ought to be well grounded in the Prophetic Tradition to properly understand the Qur’an.

5. The Qur’an (or Hadith) is a comprehensive text. Thus, approaching it necessitate having a well grounded general understanding of all its verses. The same goes for any constitution, cutting passages out without accounting for the general spirit & message of the original text can easily lead to misunderstandings.

Part II: the Teachings of Islam.

Claim-1: ?!

A. ?

B. “a man’s testimony is twice a woman’s” ; or, A man’s proportion (of inheritance) is twice that of a woman ; or, there is an “overtly sexual verse from the Quran”.

C. Therefore, Islam does not promote Peace.

- Regardless if the premise of Con’s argument here is true or not, an important piece is still missing: (A); that is, how is testimony (or inheritance, or sex) relevant to wether Islam promotes peace or not? Which Con ignored, which makes his argument invalid.

Claim-2: Women are oppressed in Islam:

- Con did not in fact directly make any such claim, however he attempted, unsuccessfully, to push us to arrive at such conclusion! Nevertheless, I shall refute the claim just to put the matter to rest.

- As established in the previous round, Islam postulates that all members of mankind, male or female, are:

1. Equal in birth.

2. Equal in humanity.

3. Essentially dignified.

> & also:

4. Equal in religious obligation & reward:

* “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger.” (9:71) [*].

* “Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward.” (33:35) [*].

5. Equitable, though not equal, in Gender:

* “Verily, Women are but the equivalent of Men. Those honourable among men will honour them, and those ignoble among men will dishonour them” the Prophet [15], also articulated into: “Women are twin halves of men” or “Women are the counter-part of Men” [16].

* “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable” (2:228) [*].

* “And the male is not like the female” (3:36) [*].

=> Therefore, we can deduce that Islam fundamentally promotes
equality, dignity & equity among genders, thus fosters an essential state free from gender oppression, thus Peace among genders. If Con thinks otherwise, he must establish the opposite through proper reasoning & proper proofs.

>> To be continued >>




[14] p. 198



Debate Round No. 3


Pro continues to argue senselessly and my patience for this debate has run out, so I will simply be moving on.



- Con has once again not provided any rebuttals whatsoever, thus all my arguments stand.

- Also, apparently Con has conceded the debate & moved on, violating thus the structure of the debate. I shall nonetheless continue my case.


- We have yet to see any reliable source brought by Con to support the series of claims he made. Thus, they shall all remain bare assertions, thus dismissed.

Part III: the Example of the Prophet.

Claim-1: Prophet Muhammad was a wealthy warlord!

- Con has provided no proof for this claim. Nonetheless, I shall dispel it anyways:

1. Before his mission begun, Muhammad was not wealthy, he was employed as a merchant by a wealthy businesswoman Khadija, who upon hearing about his noble character (he was called al-Amin, ‘the Trustworthy’), sent her servant Nafisa to propose marriage to him, which he rejected saying: “I have no means to provide for a wife”. It was only when he realised it was Khadija, being capable of providing for herself, who wished to marry him that he agreed [19].

2. All the wealth of Khadija, the Prophet & his clan was dissipated during the 3 years blockade of Quraysh [20].

3. During his life in Medina, Muhammad was not wealthy either. This, either due to real lack of means that he used to attach a stone to his belly from severe hunger which often lasts for days [22] ; or, even when the situation of Muslims got better, due to excessive donations [23], that “never was the Prophet asked for a thing to be given for which his answer was ‘no’." [23], he “would not refrain from walking with a widow or poor person and tending to their needs.” [24] & he took it upon himself to pay the debts of his companions: “if a Muslim dies while in debt, I [Muhammad] am responsible for the repayment of his debt” [25], or due to his perpetually ascetic lifestyle, that his family “never ate to the fill the bread of barley for two successive days until he died.” [26] ; the size of his house was 4.8m on its long side & 3.4m on its short side [27]. All that, while being the religious & secular leader of all Muslims.

=> Regardless, I don’t see how this is related to the resolution!

Claim-2: The Prophet spread Islam by the sword!

- Here again Con does not provide any evidence for this claim:

1. This is a myth that has been reiterated by some Christians & western historians for centuries, for which they never really provided any proof. Here, De Lacy O’Leary says: “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.” [28].

2. The Prophet during his military carrier led 29 campaigns (all of which were defensive campaigns, only 9 of which turned into battles [32]) at the end of which he united, for the first time in History, Arabia, the land known for its perpetual warfare. In all these campaigns, there has been a total of 386 deaths recorded on both sides (183 muslims, & 203 non-muslims) [33], while the muslims armies reach up to 30,000 soldiers [34]. As for the unverified (i.e. uncertain) deaths, are estimated at most at 1,000. This is, by far, the least bloody unification in History, especially since it’s a unification of hundreds of ever warring tribes.

3. Most of Arabia came under the command of the Prophet not through war, but voluntarily. In year 9H alone, over 70 tribes came voluntarily to pledge allegiance to him [35].

3. These myths are sometimes propagated based on misquotations of the Prophet, such as “Paradise is under the shades of swords.”, whereas when these quotes are put in context they defeat these myths:

* “Allah's Messenger in one of his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and then he got up amongst the people saying, "O people! Do not wish to face the enemy (in a battle) and ask Allah to save you (from calamities) but if you should face the enemy, then be patient and let it be known to you that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” [36]. It is clear from the context that war is to be avoided & Muslims should pray to be saved from it, but when they have to face it, they should express patient, be brave, & seek martyrdom.

4. Calling to war without just cause & being brave in battle are two different things, the latter being the only noble virtue. The Prophet never initiated a war, but he was the bravest in battle: “When the battle grew fierce, we [the companions], by God, would seek protection by his [the Prophet’s] side, and the bravest among us was he who confronted the onslaught and it was the Prophet (pbuh).” [37]. During the Battle of the Trench (when Quraysh & Ghatafan sieged Medina for weeks) for instance, the Prophet (pbuh) was himself “carrying earth out of the trench till dust made the skin of his `Abdomen out of my sight and he was a hairy man.” [39], while “a stone was tied to his belly for [he] had not eaten anything for three days.” [40].

=> Claiming that the Prophet was spread Islam by the sword based on him being brave in battle is the purest form of propaganda.

Claim-3: The Prophet was called obliterator:

- This is again a misquotation, the original text says: “I am Muhammad (the praised one), and Ahmad (the praising one), and I am the Mahi (the eraser) who erases disbelief [. . .]” [41]. Mahi (eraser of disbelief) stems from:

1.“Islam wipes out all that has gone before it” [42], as in all the misdeeds of a convert are wiped out.

2. “It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion.” (61:9) [*], in the sense that “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.” (2:256) [*].

Claim-4: Quraysh were a neutral tribe that was decimated by the Muslims!

- Wow! Anyone who has the slightest idea about the Prophet knows the dreadful role that the Quraysh played.

1. Quraysh was the tribe to which Muhammad himself belonged & lived the 53 first years of his life. & Quraysh inhabited the city of Mecca [43].

2. During his mission in Mecca, the Quraysh persecuted, blockaded, exiled, tortured, abducted & killed many of the Prophet’s followers [44].

3. Before the Prophet’s migration to medina, Quraysh evicted his followers from their homes & extorted their properties. Which made them migrate to Medina, 1 year later, the permission to fight Quraysh was given [45]: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah .”” (22:39-40) [*].

4. During his stay in Medina the Quraysh gathered their army to attack the Muslims, especially in the Battle of Badr & the Battle of Uhud [46].

5. In year 5H, the Quraysh allied with many other Arab tribes & jewish tribes & sieged Medina (the Prophet’s city) for 3 weeks in order to eradicate the Muslims (called the Battle of the Trench) [47], in which they did not succeed.

6. In year 6H the Prophet made a truce with Quraysh. Nearly two years after, the Quraysh breached the treaty & killed some of the Prophet’s allies, thus declaring war on Muslims.

7. Thereupon, the Prophet, & for the first time, marched with his great army towards Mecca. The Meccans surrendered, then Muhammad turning to its people said:

* ”O Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you?"

They said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you."

Thereupon the Prophet, despite all the harm & torture & oppression & suffering they caused him & his followers, he forgave them all saying:

"I speak to you in the same words as Y$3;suf spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free.” [47].

>> To be continued >>

Debate Round No. 4


Continuation of points already made.



- Sadly, Con has offered no sources for his claims, nor has he refuted any of mine. Thus, his shall be dismissed & mine are effective throughout the debate.

Part III: the Example of the Prophet

Claim-5: the whole paragraph about the wives of the Prophet!

- Con did not bother to provide any sources for the allegations mentioned here, they shall all be dismissed as bare assertion. Furthermore, regardless of the truth of these claims, they essentially have nothing to do with the resolution, yet Con has not even attempted to show us otherwise.

- Besides, the verse is a false translation (66:5) [*], a conduct which may explain Con’s unwillingness to provide sources.

Claim-5: Charlie Hebdo gunmen inspired their actions from the Prophet!

- Here Con assumed the Prophet would condone their acts based on some fantastic version of him Con made up, & proceeded to conclude that these acts inspired the gunmen which they emulated! The argument is thus invalid, & also false, for If it were true, then hundreds of millions of practicing Muslims around would also follow the Prophet’s foot sets in regards to “defending” him, especially, those most devout among them! Whereas, we see these devout Muslims who essentially know about the Prophet more than anyone else condemning these acts!

Part IV: non-Muslims in Islam

Verse 9:29

- Context: “this verse has been revealed to sanction the campaign of Tabuk” [48] when the rulers of Ghasan were attempting to attack the Muslims in Medina year 9H:

* Narrated Umar: “[. . .] and at that time we dreaded a king of Ghassan. It was mentioned to us that he intended to attack us, and our minds were haunted by him.” [49].

=> It is clear from the context that the verse is sanctioned against hostile non-Muslims, in self-defence. As for Con’s delusional claims such as “Christians should be subjugated to forcible conversion”, well, the verse mentions Jizyah, it doesn’t even say anything about conversion.

- Meaning:

* “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

> This again shows that those hostile among non-Muslims should be fought, in self-defence, until they surrender & accept paying the Jizyah, thus adhering to the rule of Islam [48].

- What is the Jizyah? It’s a Contract that guarantees fundamental rights to both parties [50]:

> To the Dhimmi: Independence & Protection.

> To the Muslims: Jizyah Tax & Maintenance of the Treaty.

1. Independence in:

i. (Tolerance in) Religion & Law.
ii. Property.

2. Protection:

i. Exterior Protection: against outside enemies.
ii. Interior Protection: of Life, of Wealth & of Honour.
iii. Assurance.

3. Jizyah Tax: a tax levied on non-Muslims in exchange for exempting them from military engagement, such that if they chose to fight for themselves, or if the Muslims fail at protecting them, the tax drops.

- Result: it’s, thus, clear that the regulations concerning non-Muslims in regard to fighting them & the Jizyah do not go against the principals of Universality, Equality & Tolerance promoted by Islam (ref. R2).

Verse 9:33

- Prevail here is in the sense that: "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed.” (17:81) [*]. The verse is not even remotely related to fighting [51]!

Verse 8:12

- Context: the verse is revealed concerning the Batter of Badr agains Quraysh, & it is addressed to the angles not the muslims, an obvious elements which Con seemed to have ignored!

* “[. . .] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” “ (8:9-12) [*].

=> The verse speaks in the context of the battlefield, which consists of soldiers FIGHTING each-other, duh! Plus, instilling fear in the hearts of the enemy is one of the most conventional & most effective tactics of psychological warfare, as it defeats the will of the enemy & weakens his mind.

Verse 9:30

- Here Con resorts to the theological verdict in Islam against non-Muslims to infer allegations about Intolerance in real life! As established in R2, Tolerance with non-Muslims does not involve acknowledging truth in their beliefs! That would be self-contradictory!

Part V: Just War in Islam

Verse 4:89

- Context: the first question that arises looking at the verse is who are ‘they’? Aliens? Muslims? Infidels? Potatoes? What exactly is ‘they’ referring to here?! Going back one verse, ‘they’ refers to the Munafiqun, the traitors who pretended to be muslim but strived to undermine the Prophet’s mission & rule from within, siding with the non-Muslims in an attempt to eradicate the Muslims or return them to disbelief [52].

Verse 5:33

- Context: the verse was revealed concerning a group of people who came to the Prophet pretending to be muslim & asked to stay with him. They got sick, so he sent them to drink some of the milk & piss of the camels stored in the Treasury. When they felt healthy, they killed the shepherds, stole the camels & fled [53].

=> The verse does not remotely concern non-Muslims, it concerns those who commit Haraba (waging war against Allah's command), defined by Imam Malik as: “those who take arms against the people to plunder their wealth without prior war or enmity” [53].

Defence of Just War:

- Upon examining the Qur’an, one finds that all the verses associated to war, in their right context, are restrained to self defence. For instance:

* “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you 1* but do not transgress 2*. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors 3*. And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you 4*, for persecution is worse than slaughter. but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque 5*, unless they (first) fight you there 6*; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful 7*. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression 8*, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility 9* except to those who practise oppression 10*.” (2:190-193).

=> It is manifest when we see the part “kill them wherever you find them” in the context of the verses, that they only grant permission to fight in a strict context of self defence, such that this constrained permission is affirmed & confirmed from 1* through 10*.


- I have shown throughout this debate that Islam is a religion that promotes Peace in that:

1. It promotes Equality & Justice, Brotherhood among Muslims, Tolerance with non-Muslims, Mercy to All, Noble Character, & Equity between Genders.

2. Its Prophet was an exemplar human being, who never initiated a battle except in self defence, & who forgave his enemies even after much oppression was done to him & his followers.

3. It sanctions self defence as a tool to free Muslims from oppression & injustice done to them for the greater Peace.

=> Vote Pro.


[19] /




[23] /









[33] , p. 139


[35] p. 408 - p. 417














[50] /




Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago

- Hahhaha! I am generally not interested in defending my beliefs, I like a good challenge though, or a good exchange of ideas.
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago
I find it a bit odd because I'd expect you wanting to defend your belief the most during this holy month. But that's your prerogative. I'm afraid a forum debate can easily get out of hand with too many participants. I'll debate you when you're ready. And Ramadan Mobarek.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
- I prefer a Forum topic. I can't do serious debates during Ramadan.
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago
I'll forward you a debate later tonight when I have access to my laptop.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
- OK, why do you think that is the case?
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago

Why do I think punishment for apostasy is so bad?

Oh, I don't think you clearly understood me. I don't only think it's bad... I think it's horrendous, evil, horrific, disgusting, shameful, disturbing, barbaric, devilish, medieval, atrocious, creepy, heinous, outrageous, wicked, monstrous, nefarious, unjust, malevolent... that's just to name a few.

Just in case you're in doubt.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago

- Every scholar or follower of a Madhhab is also soufi (such as myself). Soufis can be Malikis & Shafi'is & Hanafis (although only few are Hanbalis these days), & so they believe in Apostasy in case you didn't know. There is no soufi that doesn't believe in Apostasy. & honestly, why do you think the penalty is so bad?!

- Quranists aren't really muslim. They are, individually, by virtue of their ignorance, but collectively they aren't. & that has been established by consensus.

- Salafis are not a Madhahb, they are a political movement, which makes their interpretations alien to Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'a, especially since they have some staggering Fatwas in their books.
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago
"Debating the same subject"

You're assuming that I think that Islam is not a religion of peace. I think certain interpretations of Islam is peaceful, others are not. If the interpretation believes in apostasy, then that's not peaceful. Soufism is peaceful. Quranists are peaceful. Salafists are not.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
- Thanks for the vote ^_^

- Maybe you & I should do a debate about the same subject.
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago
I provided my vote. If you have issues accessing the Google Docs, let me know.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Null vote. Pro clearly won arguments, but the aggrivating/misleading manner in which he presents his arguments and attempts to impose his own rule structure (never, ever do that - always ask first and let the instigator change the format for it), and then proceeded to ignore Con's open concerns about this in R2 makes it impossible to vote on this fairly. Bad conduct from Pro, and similarly bad conduct from Con. Con could have probably taken a default win if he just continued debating and called Pro out on breaking format - but alas.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a null vote. Although Pro's R3-5 arguments were actually rebuttals to Con's initial points, contrary to Con's (and my) initial assumption, the format in which the arguments were presented is not cohesive to debate structure, in general. Pro did not provide rebuttals to Con's argument in entirely, but rather, broke up the rebuttals into subsequent rounds, leaving a significant portion of Con's arguments unaddressed each round. In fact, a portion of Pro's counter-argument is presented in R5, when Con would have literally no chance to defend. So, although Pro's case is well organized and structured, it is not formatted well for the exchange of arguments of a debate.