The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Islam is not a peaceful religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 84056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (3)




I will be proving that Islam is not a peaceful religion. A challenging debate for the Con, let the game debate :)

Please abide by all the rules and format stated here.


Round 1: Acceptance Only

Round 2: Opening Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Strictly closing debate only.

1. Burden of Proof is on me.

2. No trolling, forfeits or semantic arguments.

3. Failure from either side to properly adhere to the format of the debate will result in a loss of conduct in the voting stage.


Well ill be debating its a peaceful religion

You have not listed the terms of the definitions so i will do that now

Islam-A peaceful religion mainly occurring in the middle east

peaceful- being non-warlike

So because you didn't list the terms you must now prove that a peaceful religion is not

If you find someway out of that predicament i will use the bible and other religious texts to prove my point that Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity or Judasim however i think that is impossible given my terms

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate. I will begin with quoting scripture from the Quran, the central text of Islam.

Quran 9:5 (the infamous verse of the sword inciting mass murder):

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Quran 9:29:

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

Quran 8:12:

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

I believe that these verses are not talking about Spiritual Warfare, but instead physical warfare, as "strike off every fingertip of them" cannot be misinterpreted as such.

It is now clear that Islam is not a peaceful religion, as you can see. As a matter of fact, it contains more than 100 verses about violence, and little about peace. Islam is a religion that condones Rape, Murder, Pedophilia, and other war-like crimes.


Thank you.


You haven't found your way out the terms i have given and you ignored them completely but this debate will amuse me so i will debate this topic.

You have distorted the main meaning of Islam which is peace by nitpicking

So i will do what you did but to Christianity, your religion, and pick verses about what you said were despicable such as rape, murder and other warlike crimes

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. -Deuteronomy 13:7-12

God tells to us to kill those who follow different religions. Not very tolerant? However..

"There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned." (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

So the Bible tells you to murder people who don't believe in God while Islam tells you not to force people to believe


If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Huh? I guess God doesn't care about rape victims and makes them forced to marry their rapists

Warlike crimes? How about when God rips babies out of mothers wombs and dashes them to rocks in Hosea 13:16

You will say i'm taking it out of context but you are doing the same

Sources in Comments
Debate Round No. 2


Tilar forfeited this round.


You lose Tilar

Debate Round No. 3


My apologies, I did not post my debate on Round 3 on time.

Your arguments are irrational. Islam has never supported peace. Instead, Islam uses peace to mask what is truly behind it's walls: murder, rape, war, and terror. Below I will list some verses from the Qur'an to justify my argument.

Qur'an 3:32 "Say: Obey Allah and His Messenger; But if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers"
Qur'an 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves."
Qur'an 4:24 "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you."
Qur'an 9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (anyone who does not worship Allah) wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Would a peaceful "non-warlike" religion be one that promotes rape, murder, and hate among those who do not follow their set of beliefs? Now in response to your comment about Christianity, does God not command us to love one-another, and to judge not (regardless of race,religion, or even the attitude they give to us)? If you would like to discuss further about why my Lord says those things in the Old Testament, create a new debate and invite me to it, and we will discuss it.

This has been a great debate. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to make it happen. God bless!


I don't think I need to make a lengthy conclusion

My opponent has nitpicked the Quran and failed to rebut my nitpickings of Christianity

Because nitpicking a religion is pointless

Islam tells you to be tolerant more than Christianity says to be.

Happy debate hope somebody will vote in this
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Reformist 9 months ago
And Ben Carson is still dumb

That was one of my first debates

I'm better now
Posted by Reformist 9 months ago
Yeah I define my terms from now on in my debates

Its easier and it doesn't lead to endless semantics
Posted by Kilk1 9 months ago
Lol, I think I was wrong and you were right before; it's bad etiquette. But it's legal in the sense that the Instigator should define the terms, I guess, so there's nothing I can say. Of course, I didn't need bad etiquette in our debate to show that Ben Carson being politically stupid is an unsupported claim, now did I? So I'm still clean!
Posted by Reformist 9 months ago
Yeah I decided I was wrong and you were right

Posted by Kilk1 10 months ago
@Reformist Come on! Back when I did this to you, you said that you hope I "may retain some etiquette." (I eventually repealed my "definitions.") I guess you're lacking in etiquette now. Well, at least it's legal.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: TheKryken// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Revoting - RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD is sufficient, though for future reference, it is usually beneficial to separate the reasoning for arguments and sources so that both are as clearly explained as possible. While the reporter appears to disagree on the basis of definitions presented in the debate, it's up to the voter to determine what matters most to the debate, and this voter makes clear what that is.
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
Well I'm happy with that vote
Posted by Reformist 10 months ago
Good Kyrken. Voting out of bias is very bad
Posted by TheKryken 10 months ago
Blade-of-Truth said I could revote as long as I explained it clearly and left out spelling and grammar, and reposted my RFD.
I give arguments and sources to Pro. Pro showed five verses from the Quran that indicated that Islam does not promote peace. In return, Con showed that verses from the Bible may indicate that Christianity is not peaceful. This does not show that Islam is peaceful; it merely indicates that it may be the same level of peaceful/non-peaceful as Christianity. Con claims that the verses from the Quran are taken out of context, but he gave no evidence of this or of what the context, except for one short line. This one verse does not stand up against the five provided by Pro; also, Con does not provide context for his own verse, thereby making the same mistake he says Pro made. So Pro gets sources because Pro made better use of the most important source regarding this topic, the Quran, while Con provided verses from the Bible.
Conduct to Con because of round forfeit.
I have been made aware that spelling and grammar points should only be awarded when the issues impair understanding, so no spelling and grammar points.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheKryken 10 months ago
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Revoting - RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 10 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Hayd 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I lol'd at this. Since Pro failed to provide def. in R1, Con provided, defining Islam as a religion of peace. Pro accepts this def. by default by not contesting them and therefore Con wins the debate. Pro needs to stay on his toes next time, literally there is no argument you could have made to win this debate after R1 besides contesting the definition. I award conduct points because Pro forfeited. Con wins arguments because he negated the resolution by making it truist, Pro did not realize this and therefore didn't respond correctly, losing. If Pro has any questions about this, as I'm sure he will, he can PM me.