Islam is not a religion of terrorism

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

Con

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.

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]

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?

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.

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

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