Islam is not a religion of peace
I thank Pro for instigating this debate, I accept his challenge, & I too hope this will prove to be an interesting debate.
> Religion = scripture, law, theology, & thought.
> Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an.
> Promote = encourage, advocate, advance, nurture. . .
> 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 from ‘pacifism’.
Islam is a monotheistic religion, with Allah being the sole deity. Surely this requires the destruction and purging of all other Gods? Now please correct me if I am wrong (I am far from an expert on Islam, you are probably much more qualified to talk about this than I am) but isn't this implied in the Q'uran?
3:32 "Allah loveth not the disbelievers."
8:39 "Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah."
28:86 "Never be a helper to the disbelievers."
How can Islam be a religion of peace, if it seeks to purge the World of all other faiths? This has been reflected on numerous occassions. I include one such occassion here. In October 2015, churches were attacked in Aceh, in Indonesia and one man was killed by a group of a hundred Muslim men.
Perhaps another problem associated with Islam is the use of capital punishment in many countries where the political system is closely linked to Islam. There are many countries in the World which advocate stoning as a punishment, the majority of them Muslim. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all have stoning as a punishment. In Muslim countries, homosexual people are persecuted on a routine basis. Perhaps the most horrific case of this was when ISIS members threw 4 gay men from the roof of a building.
My final point for this round is on the subject of the role of women in Muslim society. Indeed, many Muslim women are treated very well in most parts of the World. However, in Saudi Arabia, they are classed as terrorists if they drive cars. In Iran, in 2004, Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed for "infidelity" That sounds a bit extreme in itself, but it is even more horrific considering that she was raped. She did not willingly have sex with the man.
It seems to me as if women are second-class citizens in Islam. How, therefore can it claim to be a religion of peace and tolerance? That concludes my first argument.
I like to thank Pro for posting his opening argument. I shall present my opening case in this round, & proceed with rebuttals in the following rounds.
- In the case of the Qur’an, mastery of Classical Arabic, knowledge of the full context of verses & of all the details of the life of the Prophet (pbuh), are, thus, all necessary components to any meaningful interpretation of these verses.
* “Every child is born in the state of Fitrah” the Prophet (pbuh) .
* “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 (pbuh) .
* "Verily we have dignified the Children of Adam (Mankind)." (17:70).
* “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable” (2:228).
* “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 (pbuh), also articulated into: “Women are the counter-part of Men” .
* “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 .
* “And the men believers and the women believers are patrons one of the other” (9:71).
* ”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 .
* ”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).
* ”There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve.” “ (18:29).
* “So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller.” (88:21-22), “But if they turn away - then We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], over them as a guardian; upon you is only [the duty of] notification”, “and upon Us is the account.” (43:48)(13:40).
i. Fairness & Kindness must prevail in dealing with peaceful 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.” (60:8-9).
ii. Justice in self-defence & Patience must prevail in dealing with hostile non-Muslims:
* “Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (60:9), "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient". (16:126).
* “O you mankind, surely We created you of a male and a female, and We have made you races and tribes that you may get mutually acquainted. Surely the most honourable among you in the Providence of Allah are the most pious” (49:13).
* “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Verily, Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, for persecution is worse than slaughter. but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.” (2:190-193).
* “Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” the Prophet (pbuh) .
* “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 (pbuh) .
* “There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” the Prophet (pbuh) .
* "Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." (2:60).
 http://goo.gl... p. 198
However I will address the first point Con makes. They have talked about how verses can be taken out of context by people who don't understand the Q'uran. However, can Con address the verses that I mentioned and explain why they are taken out of context or why I have quoted them wrongly? They have mentioned the French constitution and how that was taken out of context, but have so far failed to explain how I have taken the verses from the Q'uran out of context. I agree that in most cases, understanding is key, but can you please explain the verses, quoting them and then explaining the "linguistic, textual and circumstantial contexts" that surround them.
"Islam teaches universal Equality amongst Mankind"
"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"
There is one glaring thing which I notice when I look at this scripture. The last 3 words. "Except by piety"
This implies that those who are non pious are inferior to people who are pious. This quote then, does not teach that Mankind is equal. It teaches that those who are not Muslims are inferior to those who are. Again, please address this if I have taken this out of the "linguistic, textual and circumstantial contexts" that surround it.
"And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable" (2:228)
Again, I find that there is something glaringly wrong with this verse. First of all, it does not explicitly say that women are equal to men. It states that "Women shall have rights SIMILAR to men", implying that they do not have the same rights. It does not say that their rights are exactly the same. This is reflected again towards the end of the verse; "according to what is equitable" Equitable has two definitions;
1. characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable
pertaining to or valid in equity.
pertaining to the system of equity, as distinguished from the common law.
There is clear ambiguity here. However the first part of the verse and the context of the word in the verse clearly suggests that the second definition is more accurate in this case. Therefore, the verse is actually implying that women have similar right to men, not the same and their rights are according to law. This verse, the way I see it and perhaps the way many Muslim governments see it (Saudi Arabia etc.), does not promote equality among men and women.
"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." " (18:29)
This verse does not, in my view, promote "Freedom of religion in belief & practice". Yes, it says "Let him disbelieve" but that does not prove to me that Islam does promote freedom of religion. It does not describe the consequences of disbelieving. If someone does disbelieve, what will happen to him/her? "Let him disbelieve" does not promote freedom of religion at all. Instead, it leaves the consequences of disbelieving open to interpretation.
Many of these verses mentioned are, in fact, ambiguous and unclear. They do nothing to convince me that Islam is a religion of peace. I will again mention the many oppressive, violent Muslim governments today (Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.) These countries routinely execute people for apostasy among other things. Saudi Arabia classes women as terrorists if they drive cars.
Thanks for what has been an interesting debate so far, I eagerly anticipate your response.
- One: Pro is contradicting himself here! Allah being the sole deity & there being other gods is a contradiction. Two: as established in R2 (IV. 1.) , Allah (God) pre-ordained the existence of different religions, thus contradicting the supposition that He also commanded their destruction.
- No, He does not, as manifest by the fact that ingrate disbelievers (kafireen) are promised Hell Fire. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the current discussion, for it only involves this life, not the afterlife.
- Pro seems to be confirming my resolution here. Fighting to alleviate persecution is literally fighting for a state of freedom from injustice or oppression, thus fighting for Peace.
- Yes, in their disbelief & polytheism , as is also clear from the context of the verse, explained just right after the statement:
* “… And never let them avert you from the verses of Allah after they have been revealed to you. And invite [people] to your Lord. And never be of those who associate others with Allah.” (28:87)
=> Muslims can’t be expected to advocate for disbelief or help in empowering it! That would be theologically incoherent.
- As for ordinary assistance, that has already been established in R2 (IV. 4.), which Pro has yet to disprove.
- It doesn’t! That would be against the decree of the Qur’an in the pre-ordained difference of religion.
- As for Pro’s examples. Well, Muslims happen to be human beings, thus prone to the entire spectrum of human behaviour, including occasionally becoming criminals & fanatics. Pro fails to prove how Islam allegedly advocates for the purge of other religions.
- Pro’s statement here is very ambiguous, as we can’t see how this is related to the resolution. How is Islam being a religion which allegedly doesn’t promote Peace related to capital punishment in political systems closely linked to Islam?! Pro has yet to make any argument that needs refutation. Until he does, I shall ignore this.
- Bare assertion, straw-man, & no arguments.
- Bare assertion, straw-man, & no arguments.
- Straw-man. Not that this has anything to do with the current resolution, but it’s clear that it’s a case of miscarriage of justice by a vengeful rogue judge. Cases of wrongful execution are not that uncommon in the US either .
- Bare assertion, already disproven in R2 (II. 4. \ III. 2.), which Pro has yet to refute. Pro’s emotions & personal impressions about the subject hold no weight in the soundness of any his arguments.
- I am not in any better situation that Pro. The interpretations I provided for mentioned verses aren’t mine, they are taken from authentic & authoritative sources, mainly the 30-volumes Exegesis of the Qur’an: at-Tahrir wat-Tanwir, complied by the great scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, considered one of the Mujadidin of the Maliki school.
- The issue is not in mentioning such verses, it’s in whimsically interpreting them without proper qualification.
- Straw-man! Superiority in “Piety” evidently refers to benefits in the afterlife, not this life, which is the only relevant part to the resolution. Islam does indeed teach Equality in Humanity, not in everything, for that would be totally senseless. Humans aren’t really equal in everything, people differ in wealth, in status, in age, in knowledge…
- Being inferior in Piety does not entail being inferior in Humanity.
* “a bier passed before the Prophet (pbuh) and he stood up. He was told that the dead man was a Jew. Upon this he remarked: “Was he not a human being or did he not have a soul?!” “ .
=> Being an unbeliever does not diminish one’s humanity or one’s dignity.
- Indeed. The Qur’an is pretty clear about that:
* “And the male is not like the female.” (3:36)
=> That doesn’t say that males are inherently superior to females, or that females are inherently superior to males! Men aren’t really equal to Women, in any strict sense, for that would entail a contradiction.
- Indeed. Islam decrees equality between genders, in the sense of Equity (justice & fairness) of genders, NOT strict equality. Men & Women are, by definition, unequal in gender. Treating two unequal entities the same is necessarily unjust to at least one of both. Thus, the type of equality Pro seeks is necessarily unjust, which as established is not what Islam teaches, for it seeks a state of freedom from Injustice.
- There really isn’t. It is what it is.
- WHAT!!! Is Pro suggesting that “equitable” in the verse refers to Equity Law as per the English common law?!!! That’s like saying, “women” in the verse refers to the English women’s magazine titled: “Women”! No conceivable relation whatsoever.
- Pro is, again, contradicting himself. Permission to chose disbelief IS, by definition, freedom of religion. Besides, Pro chose to ignore the dozen other verses mentioned to that effect, which he has yet to disprove.
- It does indeed, just in the afterlife, not this life, which is irrelevant to the current resolution. The verse reads:
* “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them.” (18:29)
- No, it clearly doesn’t; especially, since there is an abundance of verses that enjoin over & over freedom of religion, which Pro chose to ignore entirely. That's why it's a good idea to have proper qualification before attempting to interpret such important texts.
Lutonator forfeited this round.
- Awaiting Pro's rebuttals & sources.
Lutonator forfeited this round.
=> Vote Con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|