The Instigator
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,369 times Debate No: 22655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Clash

Pro

This debate is a challenge to Microsuck. Microsuck and I have agreed to have a re-debate on this topic, because Microsuck was on vacation last time and could therefore not finish the whole debate. I would like to remind Microsuck that he cannot use he argument that just because some Muslims have done this and that, Islam must be a religion of terrorism. We will use the foundation of Islam in this debate, which is the Quran and sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him).


Rules


Round 1 is acceptance only. Round 2 are arguments only. Round 3 are for rebutting the opponents arguments at round 2. Round 4 is more rebuttal and closing arguments.


Definitions

Islam: The religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah. [1]

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. [2]


References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Microsuck

Con

Accepted. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Clash

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate challenge, and I'm looking forward to have this debate with you again.


Arguments

My arguments will be almost the same as the ones I have at the previous debate with Microscuk on this topic. They will go like this:

1) Prophet Muhammed against terrorism

2) The Quran against terrorism

3) What is Jihad and does it have anything to do with terrorism?


Prophet Muhammed against terrorism

Many examples can demonstrate the fact that prophet Muhammed was against terrorism. I will just give two of them. Giving just these two examples is enough to prove my point that prophet Muhammed was not someone who promoted terrorism, but someone who was against it.

1) Some examples of the sayings of prophet Muhammed which is clearly against terrorism.

Do not kill children. Avoid touching people who devote themselves to worship in churches! Never murder women and the elderly. Do not set trees on fire or cut them down. Never destroy houses. (Bukhãri)

Allah is not kind to him who is not kind to people. (Muslim & Bukhari)


A believer continues to guard his Faith (and thus hopes for Allah's Mercy) so long as he does not shed blood unjustly". (Al-Bukhari)

The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed. (Muslim and Al-Bukhari)

There is a reward for kindness to every living animal or human. (Muslim and Al-Bukhari)

Those who are kind and considerate to Allah's creatures, Allah bestows His kindness and affection on them. Show kindness to the creatures on the earth so that Allah may be kind to you. (Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi)


Its clear from these sayings that prophet Muhammed was not a man who promoted terrorism. Someone who did, would never say things like this. And these sayings are just some of many more.


2)
When prophet Muhammed entered the town of Makkah with his huge army, the Quraysh people stood before him expecting him to kill them all. The Quraysh people had previously tortured him and his companions, exiled him and brutally killed his dearest relatives. They basically made a living hell for him. But what did the prophet Muhammed do? He forgave them all. Does this seem like a person of terrorism? Would someone who promoted terrorism do this? Clearly not.


The Quran against terrorism

There are many verses in the Quran which clearly denounces terrorism. Let me give some of them.

... if someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs, but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat al-Ma'ida, 32)

Why shouldn't you fight in the cause of Allah and for those oppressed because they are weak. Men, women and children who cry out, Our Lord! Rescue us from this town of oppressors. (Noble Quran 4:75)

But as for those who break Allah's contract after it has been agreed and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode. (Surat ar-Ra'd, 25)

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. God loves just dealers." (Noble Quran 60:8)

Whenever he holds the upperhand, he goes about the earth corrupting it, destroying (people's) crops and breeding stock. Allah does not love corruption. When he is told to have fear of Allah, he is seized by pride which drives him to wrongdoing. Hell will be enough for him! What an evil resting-place. (Surat al-Baqara, 205-206)

and let not the hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is next to piety; and fear Allah, for Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Noble Quran 5:8)

If they seek peace, then seek you peace and trust in God for He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Noble Quran 8:61)


As can be seen from the above verses, it is out of question for someone who fears Allah to do a terrorist act. The Quran clearly is against terrorism, as seen from these verses. Unfortunately, some people have picked some verses from the Quran and justified his terrorist actions by it. All those verses due, are just out of context. A Muslim who knows the Quran good, knows that it is against terrorism.


What is Jihad and does it have anything to do with terrorism?

Its a big misunderstanding on Jihad going on. The biggest misunderstanding on it, is that its meaning is "Holy war". This is completely wrong. You will not find in any place the word "Holy war" in the Quran, which means "harbun muqaddasatu" in arabic. The exact meaning of "Jihad" is "effort". Thus, in Islam, "to carry out jihad" is "to show effort, to struggle". Prophet Muhammad explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". This means your desires and ambitions. The term Jihad is applied in many different forms. One of its forms is also war. Jihad can indeed be used in war. But Allah permitted Jihad in war only for defensive porpuses.
Jihad does not have anything to do with terrorism, it simply just a self-defense. Jihad in Islam is striving in the way of God, by for example doing good deeds, propogate the message of Islam, making the hajj, and, if no other choice - with arms (using weapons in combat).

The Quran is clear on the issue of war. For Muslims to participate in war there must be valid justifications, and strict conditions must be fulfilled. Muslims were allowed to wage war only because they were oppressed and subjected to violence. To put it in another way, Allah granted permission for war only for defensive purposes. And even when in war, there are many rules to be followed. You cannot for example kill children, women, the elderly, destroy houses, cut down trees etc. Jihad is also used to stop oppression. If there is oppression, the Muslims should fight those who created that oppression and then create peace.

This is what the dictionary of Islam says about Jihad: '(1) Personal Struggle (in the way of Allah (God) to keep evil away from yourself) (2) Holy War (Fighting a fair, defensive war - to stop oppression.' [1]

It should also be notet that Islam stricly forbids to force someone in believing in Islam. In the Quran, God says: Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error. (2:256)


Conclusion

It is totally irrational to say that Islam is a religion of terrorism, when its foundations (i,c.. The Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad) clearly speaks against it, as seen above. Islam is not a religion of terrorism, but of peace. Even the word "Islam" itself is derived from the word "Peace". I have also shown that Jihad does not have anything to do with terrorism, and that war in Islam is only for defensive purposes or to stop oppressed.

There is no such thing as a "Holy war" againt non-Muslims or that Muslims must rule the whole world and force everybody to become Muslims. This is the biggest lie in the history of mankind! It should also be noted that the term "terrorism" does not exist in the Quran or the teachings of prophet Muhammed. If the terms "terrorist or terrorism" are derived from a verb used in the Quran, such as 5:33 describing a "Muslim's" terrorist acts, it is in condemnation and prescribes a big punishment. In the light of the teachings of the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammed, we clearly and strongly can state:

All acts of terrorism is forbidden in Islam, and also for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.


Sources
1. http://www.islamic-dictionary.com...

2. http://www.searchtruth.com...

3. www.aboutjihad.com

4. www.quran.com
Microsuck

Con

I wish to thank my partner for his knowledge of the Qur'an and his well-thought-out opening arguments. In order for me to win this debate, I need to prove that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Note that my arguments are the exact same as the last.

I. What is Jihad?

According to the Dictionary of Islam, a Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad." [1]

II. What the Qur'an says about unbelievers

3:149-151, "O ye who believe! If ye obey those who disbeieve, they will make you turn your backs on your heels, and ye turn back as loosers. But Alah is your Protector, and He is the best of Helpers. We shall cast terror in the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant has been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers."

4:91 "Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant".

III. Why should we fight the unbelievers?


The Qur'an says that we should fight unbelievers because of their beliefs. This is what the Qur'an says in Sura 9:

9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
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 (a poll tax) readily, being brought low.
9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

In this Surah, we see several things: (1) Idolaters are unclean; (2) Fight those who: (a) Do not believe in Allah, (b) nor the Last Day, (c) Forbid not that which has Alah has forbidden by his messanger, and (d) Follow not the Reigion of Truth; (3) This is because the Jews say Ezra is Allah's son and Christians say Jesus is Allah's son. Consequently, they are perverse and must be killed.

IV. Kill the Apostates!

Qur'an (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 Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

V. How the early Muslims interpreted all of this

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:

"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" [2]

Bukhari volume 9, #64

Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." [emphasis mine] [3]

Conclusion

It is totally irrational to say that Islam is a religion of peace, when it is very clear that Muhammad commanded terrorism. The problem is that Muhammad often contradicted himself whenever it suited him. This is where the abrrogated doctrine comes into play. I have shown several verses from the Quran which clearly state that we should kill the unbelievers. Moreover, the dictionary of Islam clearly states that a Jihad is a holy war against unbelievers. Although it may derive from the word "peace", more accurately, it means "surrender." [4]


----------
Sources

1. The Dictionary of Islam, quoted in "Why I am Not a Muslim." page 12
2. Muhammad, Islam, and Terrorism. http://www.answering-islam.org......;
3. Ibid.
4. http://www.islamic-dictionary.com......;
Debate Round No. 2
Clash

Pro

Rebuttal


I. What is Jihad?


My opponent said that according to the dictionary of Islam, a Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad." This is not what in fact the dictionary of Islam says. This is what the dictionary of Islam, which my own opponent has put in his sources and which I mentioned in my arguments, says about Jihad: '(1) Personal Struggle (in the way of Allah (God) to keep evil away from yourself) (2) Holy War (Fighting a fair, defensive war - to stop oppression' [1]

Note that Con does not give any link to this "Dictionary of Islam". It seems like its from a site "Why I am not a Muslim". Funny indeed, but the fact is that the dictionary of Islam does not say what Con claims, as I have shown. At my argument round, I explained what Jihad really is and that it does not have anything to do with terrorism. For the sake of the argument, I will explain it briefly again. The meaning of "Jihad" is "effort". Thus, in Islam, "to carry out jihad" is "to show effort, to struggle". Prophet Muhammad explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". This means your desires and ambitions. The term Jihad is applied in many different forms. One of its forms is also war. But Allah permitted Jihad in war only for defensive porpuses. And Jihad does not mean "Holy war".

Jihad does not have anything to do with terrorism, it simply just a self-defense. Jihad in Islam is striving in the way of God, by for example doing good deeds, propogate the message of Islam, making the hajj, and, if no other choice - with arms (using weapons in combat)


II. What the Qur'an says about unbelievers

I will respond to both of these verses, taking only with me their place in the Quran, because of limited space.

3:149-151

Answer: This verse does in no way promote terrorism. It does only say to not follow the disbelievers. Because the disbelievers make partners with God, terror will be cast into their hearts by God, and they will go to hell because of that. It does not say anything about killing the unbelievers or to promote terrorism.

4:91

Answer: As everybody clearly can see from this verse, the Muslims are ordered to kill them only if they do not offer peace or hold their hands. It does not say to kill them without a reason.The people being referred to by this verse are the pagan Arabs who had been waging war against prophet Muhammed and who had broken their covenant and treaties with him. And how does this verse promote terrorism? This verse is just talking about some pagans which the Muslims was in war with. Does not have anything with promoting terrorism. When it says to kill them wherever you find them, it is only meant for the those same pagan Arabs. Of course you will say to kill them wherever you find them. Every rational person would say that. Should they just look at them? Give them a hug maybe? In war, you have to kill them wherever you find them. Of course, only those who is active in the war.


III. Why should we fight the unbelievers?


My opponent says that 'the Qur'an says that we should fight unbelievers because of their beliefs'. This is not true at all. There is no complusion in islam. And nowhere in these verses that my opponent gave from the Quran does it say that we should fight the unbelievers because of their beliefs. The closest verse saying this is 9:29, but this verse is being misinterpreted a lot. Let me answer that verse and the other verses my opponent gave.

9:28

Answer: Yes, the idolatrous are unclean indeed, and because of the fact that they are idolatrous, they are of course not allowed to worship in the place of the Muslims. But what does that have to do with Islam promoting terrorism?

9:29

Answer: This verse does not say that you should fight the people of scripture because they do not believe in Allah or the last day, but that you should fight the people of scripture, until they pay the tribute. Thats all. Does not have anything with terrorism or killing the people of scripture themself because they don't believe in Allah or the last day. Why they have to pay the tribute is another topic which I dont have time to talk about.

9:30

Answer: Again, what does the fact that just because the Christians and Jews are perverse in saying that God has a son, have to do with Islam promoting terrorism?


IV. Kill the Apostates!

First of all, this verse which you showed us from the Quran does not say that we should kill apostates. It does not have anything to do with apostates. Its also taken completely out of context. This verse speaks about the pagan Arabs. If you read the whole context, you will see that this verse is talking about those pagan Arabs which are not in a peace treaty with you and basically don't want any peace, but just fight. In this verse, Allah clearly says that you should make peace with them if they also want peace, but if they attack you and don't wanna have peace with you, then you have the right to fight them.

Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:

'Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.' [2]

Now, let us say, just for the sake of the argument, that Islam teaches that apostates should be killed. Does that mean that Islam is a religion of terrorism? If so, my opponent has to show me how the killing of apostates proofs that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Basically, how does the promotion of Islam that apostates should be killed, proof that Islam also promotes terrorism?


V. How the early Muslims interpreted all of this

From Guillaume

This is not the whole saying. The saying goes on to say that Huwayyisa accepted Islam after this.
If one was to believe that the above mentioned killing did happen because of the order of Prophet Muhammad and that command was completely unjust and absolutely unwarranted for (as my opponent wants us to believe), then could the person who had questioned the killer would have accepted Muhammed as the "Messenger of God" and become a Muslim? [3]

Also, if you see the historical background behind these conflicts, you will see that the behaviors of the Jews was the root cause of the conflicts. The Jews of Medina, where this happened, used to ridicule Muslim women and tease them, mocked prophet Muhammed, and even converted to Islam just to destroy it, and at the same time living under the Muslims. It should also be noted that this is just talking about the Jews of Medina who was basically bad and tried to destroy Islam. Simple as that.


The hadith narrated by Ali

This hadith (A saying of prophet Muhammed) speaks about people who leaves Islam. Have nothing to do with promoting terrorism. Anyway, I have refuted this issue on apostaty above and so will not, and does not, need to refute it again. It should also be noted that this saying is talking about the last days. So we in our time, and probably in a very long time to come, does not need to think about this. This hadith is also clearly only speaking about 'some young foolish people'.


Sources


1. http://www.islamic-dictionary.com...
2. http://islamnewsroom.com...
3. http://www.mostmerciful.com...
4. http://islamnewsroom.com...
Microsuck

Con

I thank my partner for challenging me to this debate. It is a great honor to debate with one that has knowlege of the subject we are discussing.

-----------------------------

I. What is Jihad?

My partner claims it is to stop oppression; yet that is simply not the case. (Note that the Online Dictionary is not the same one used in the book). According to the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, a Jihad is:

DJIHAD, holy war. The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. It narrowly escaped being a sixth “rukn”, or fundamental duty, and is indeed still so regarded by the descendants of the Kharidjis. The position was reached gradually but quickly. In the Meccan Suras of the Kur’an patience under attack is taught; no other attitude was possible. But at Madina the right to repel attack appears, and gradually it became a prescribed duty to fight against and subdue the hostile Meccans. Whether Muhammad himself recognized that his position implied steady and unprovoked war against the unbelieving world until it was subdued to Islam may be in doubt. Traditions are explicit on the point; but the Kuranic passages speak always of the unbelievers who are to be subdued as dangerous or faithless. Still, the story of his writing to the powers around him shows that such a universal position was implicit in his mind, and it certainly developed immediately after his death, when the Muslim armies advanced out of Arabia. It is now a “fard ‘ala ‘l-kifaya, a duty in general on all male, free, adult Muslims, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Muslim army, yet not a duty necessarily incumbent on every individual but sufficiently performed when done by a certain number. So it must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.” [1]

So, according to this, it is a Muslims duty to fight until the entire world is under Islam. Now, as far as my partner's definition of terrorism is concerned, it certainly meets such definitions:

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. [2]

II. What the Qur'an says about unbelievers

3:149-151

My partner's claim is that it has no connection with terror. However, this is not true. Let's look again at 151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve..." The Qur'an itself even says that WE [the Muslism] are to CAST TERROR (litterally fear) in the hearts of those who disbelieve.

4:91

My partner's claim is that it is talking about those who broke treaties with them or who don't offer peace; yet the Qur'an itself says not to offer or seek peace in Surah 47:35, "So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost (lit. "stronger" or "have the upper hand in war), and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions). How did the Muslims interpret such a verse? Muslim scholar Tafsir Ibn Kathir argues: "[this] means in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the otehr hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than Muslims, then the Imam may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger did when the disbeliever obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years…"[3] [Emphasis mine]

In other words, if the disbelievers are superior in strength, have a 10 year treaty. If you are in the upper hand, destroy them utterly.

III. Why should we fight them?

My partner claims that there is no compulsion in Islam, yet that is far from the truth!

"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).



9:28-9:30

What is this poll tax and why do they have to pay it? It obviously meets the definition of terrosim. We are fighting them until they pay up (force and violence) and they are doing so because they are Christians and Jews! [4]

The reality is that after the pagan Arabs converted to Islam, they wanted a way to make money; they did so by fighting the unbelievers. [5]

Out of time.

Conclusion

Islam is a religion of terrorism.

____________
Sources

1. “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam”, edited by H.A.R. Gibb, published by Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Quoted http://www.answering-islam.org...;
2. See Pro's round 1.
3. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun. Quoted http://www.answering-islam.org...;
4. Actually, the Qur'an makes a historical error. In no way did the Jews ever say that Ezra was a Son of God!
5. See the David Wood vs. Nadir Ahmed debate on the same topic.

Debate Round No. 3
Clash

Pro

Thank you, and thank you for your response. It has been a great honor to me also to have this debate with you.

---------------------------------


What is Jihad?

Con says that you cannot use Jihad to stop oppression, but his quote from the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" does not refute in any way that Jihad cannot be used to stop oppression. Even if it said that Muslim's must take over the world, that can be in a way so Muslims can stop oppression in the world. God clearly says in the Quran that Muslims should fight for those who are oppressed(4:75), and so Con's claim is a failure indeed.

The Dictionary of Islam also refutes Con claim. This is what the dictionary of Islam, which Con seems like have ignored, says about Jihad: '(1) Personal Struggle (in the way of Allah (God) to keep evil away from yourself) (2) Holy War (Fighting a fair, defensive war - to stop oppression.' [1]

What the "Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam" is concerned, this is not a Islamic scource. This encyclopedia, was created by non-Muslims. Its not a encyclopedia created by Muslims and so that is enough, because a encyclopedia is a site to learn things, and which better way to learn Islam, from Muslims or non-Muslims? No link to this encyclopedia is given also. Con links it to a another site, but Con doesn't make it better by doing so, especially not to one of the biggest anti-Islamist site. Nowhere in the Quran or the sayings of prophet Muhammed does it say that Muslims should rule the whole world. Muslims should take a country only if they are attacked first or if the rulers of that country is oppressing the people. If Muslims are going to rule the whole world, is for those two reasons alone, and nothing more.

At war, Jihad is only for defensive purposes or to stop oppression. I have explained Jihad in my argument round, and have shown what it really is. Con refutes nothing of it. He only give a quote from a site created by non-Muslims and thinks that that will do it. That's a failure. Ask Muslims about what Jihad is, not non-Muslims. Con's knowledge of Jihad is based only on non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist sites. Please go to my source 1 and read what a real Muslim says about Jihad. Its all explained there. Con's argument is biased, and basically just a failure, and do not stand.

I want to end this by this great saying of Dr. Shahid Athar:

The word "Jihad" means struggle or, to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered jihad. One of the highest levels of jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrongdoing is also a great jihad. One of the forms of jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked. This kind of jihad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Quran and the Sunnah. [2]

 

What the Qur'an says about unbelievers


:149-151

Con clearly misunderstood what I meant. What I meant, is that this verse does not mean that we Muslims in this world and life, should kill the unbelievers and make terror. This verse is only talking about God and his creators. Because he's own creators makes partner with him, terror/fear will be cast into their heart. This verse is talking about God creating terror into them, not as Con claims, the Muslims. This can clearly been seen by reading the whole verse. "We" is used only as the "Royal WE" just as in English for royalty.


4:91

Tafsir Ibn Kathir does not say what Con claims. He only said that if the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. It doesn't say that they should kill them or something. Its talking about a treaty, in which the Muslims and the disbelievers should not fight in teen years. Where does it say that the Muslims, as Con claims, should kill the disbelievers after 10 years of that treaty? Con's conclusion of this saying is exaggerated and only meant to help his point. He says what he want it to say. Concerning verse 47:35, it does not say that you should not offer or seek peace. The Quran clearly says that if someone offer peace, then you should accept it (8:61). This verse does not prohibit the Muslims to seek peace if the enemy did incline to peace. It simply means that you shouldn't be the first to do so, since it is not necessary.



Why should we fight them?

Yes, there is no complusion in Islam, as it clearly and without a doubt says at verse 2:256. Now, to your verses which does not in any way say that there is complusion in Islam or that Muslims should force people to become Muslims:


9:3

This verse is talking about those who recect faith. It doesn't say that you should kill those who don't accept the faith. I really don't have to say more than that, because only this fact alone completely refutes Con's claim.


9:5

This verse is only refered to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. Have nothing to do with forcing people, as Con claims, to Islam. Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Quran, writes:

"It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you." [3]


9:28-9:30

They have to pay the poll tac because they are living under Muslim protection and land. This is after a country is taken by Muslims. If they don't want to pay, then they can just leave, simple as that. Con also fails to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay. This Zakat is not much more than the poll tax. If Islam is a religion of terrorism because of tax, then must of the world today is also.

 

How would the fighting of the unbelievers give them money? Let us say for the sake of the argument that some Arabs did this, which you have given no proof for, what does that have to do with Islam itself being a religion of terrorism?

 

Conclusion

Con has not answered even one of my arguments. Con has failed to defend his argument "How the early Muslims interpreted all of this". Con's sources are almost based only on what some anti-Islamist's says, which is very pathetic indeed. I have clearly shown that the verses Con have given are taken out of context, misunderstood, and does not have anything to do with Islam promoting terrorism.

The verses I gave and sayings of prophet Muhammed are clearly against terrorism, and stands much stronger than the musinderstood verses which my partner gave. The conclusion still stands very strong: Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Thank you and please vote Pro.


Source

2. http://aboutjihad.com...

3. http://islamnewsroom.com...

Microsuck

Con

Thanks for a great debate. To be fair to you, I will just say a job well done and nothing more. Good luck in the voting period. Voters, please don't vote on your bias.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
If con had posted a final argument, I'd vote for him. Pro didn't break the scripture = Islam connection and Con showed plenty of pro-terrorism scripture.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
He forfeited because he did not post a final argument and he conceded that his opponent had good arguments.

He did not say "I forfeit", but he refused to post an argument. That counts as a forfeit.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
royal, he never FF'd, and either way having no argument last round =/= automatic loss.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
It's not just your browser, I see it also. I don't know how it happened, but I hope its not that bad. Yes, I will use times new roman next time. Thanks.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I have the same issue. Next time, use times new roman, 12 or 14 font please.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
Clash, your text appears in a horrible format. It stretches to the sides. Maybe it's just my browser.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 4 years ago
InsertNameHere
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even make an argument in the last round.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to go ahead and counter Travinki because Micro essentially forfeited in the last round. Countering 16kadams. Micro never posted an argument in the last round. Word for word, he said: "Thanks for a great debate. To be fair to you, I will just say a job well done and nothing more. Good luck in the voting period. Voters, please don't vote on your bias." My RFD is longer than the argument he did not post.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ClashMicrosuckTied
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: Royal, he never conceded. So travinkis vote stand. counter.
Vote Placed by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: There was some mess with the explanation of Jihad, but Pro explained its true meaning. His arguments were far more sourced and explained where Con was wrong.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb killuminati
Vote Placed by KILLUMINATI 4 years ago
KILLUMINATI
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It is like any other religion it does not teach hate because someone takes verses out of context to try and prove it wrong
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate! Pro almost had me, his arguments were very strong and he defended Islam admirably, and without a doubt proved there is no room in modern Islam for terrorism. But con won me over with {Let's look again at 151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve}, I found his analysis to be better in the respect that Pro tried to deflect it by saying the quote meant god, but con convinced me otherwise. Sources to Pro because his Jihad definition was fairer
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
ClashMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument's were much more sound than Con's arguments. Pro thoroughly defeated each and every one of Con's contentions showing the discrepancies in each one of Con's analysis of the Qu'ran.