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

Islam is peaceful

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 64075
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




I am respectfully with this

Here are ten reasons

1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Quran. Quran 6:151 says, and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully" (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind."
2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Quran says, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error." (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islams holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.
3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things." (8:61) The Quran chapter "The Cow," 2:190, says, "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors."
4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.
5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, "Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: "I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . " (Maliks Muwatta, Kitab al-Jihad)
6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets"" any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur"an (Surah al-Ma"ida 5:33""34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, "The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as "Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . ."
7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.
8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." (Al-Tirmidhi)
9. The Qur"an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: "And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness."[5:8]
10. The Qur"an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, "Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness""their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell"" quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them "nearest in love" to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.

Ignore the fancy works, they are for encryption.


To begin with, my opponent is basing his arguments on a strictly theological point of view. Since my opponent has not set out any rules as to exactly what our topic will range, I will try to expound this debate from a strictly theological point of view to more of an historical outlook.

To begin with, the usual meaning of Islam, "al-Silm" in Arabic is, not "peace" but "submission" or "surrender." In essence, the Quaran calls for Muslims to defer to Allah and his commands and to subvert and coercively convert people of other religions until they are fully submitted to Islamic rule - and the history of Islam, embossed by war and conquering of other cultures, perfectly illustrates this fact.

Prophet Muhammed is still considered a very important figure within Islam. His role within Islam is almost divine since he is viewed as al-insan al-kamil (the perfect human being) and uswa hasana (the perfect moral example). Then by definition, everything that Muhammed did or said is good - and his moral precedence is everlasting irrespective of time and place.

Hence many Muslims see Muhammed as a role model in word and action, even 1400 years after his death. Consequently, it is important to bring into light his statements and the deeds that he purportedly did, i.e. what is written down in the hadiths. It is also perfectly clear that Muhammed wanted to back his words up by invoking God as his legal authority. The Quaran contains lots of exhortations that "He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah" (4:80). The same message can be found in 3:32, 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, etc.

Islam forbids rape on Muslim women. However, Muhammed encouraged rape of those captured in battle. As portrayed in hadith (4:24):

"The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

Actually, the hadith indicate that it wasn't Muhammed but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men that it was okay to rape the women in front of their husbands.

On instances where Muhammed is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women, he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were afraid that they would devalue their captive women for later resale were they to get them pregnant. Muhammed answers his hesitant fellow soldiers in the following way:

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Bukhari 34:432)

As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

I could go on and on about the crude and vulgar way they treat their prisoners of war. The hadith is basically a war manual, to put it mildly.

The connection between Islam can violence can be easily understood by noticing, that according to historic Muslim understanding there is no separation between religion and government. The western civilization as we know it was built on the notion that the state and the church are two distinct institutions with two different spheres of activity. One must, though, have in mind that this idea grew from a Christian worldview. However, In most parts of the world people did not share this understanding. In pagan Rome the emperors were God. It was the Christians who were taught to differentiate the spiritual affairs from wordly affairs: they learned what is due to Caesar and what is due to God.

However, for Muslims of the classical age the caliph or the sultan was sort of like Gods vice deputy on earth. For Muslims the state was Gods state and the army was Gods army and the enemies of the state were consequently the enemies of God. If the law is Gods law then in principle there could be no other law to supersede it.

Because Islam sees itself as a theocracy it is not merely a religion. It is also a political ideology. This has major ramifications for how it influences the behaviour of Muslims. If an Islamic government is Gods government, and hence the only legitimate government, then other governments that are not based on Gods law are therefore invalid. For that reason Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam"the "house of Islam" or "house of submission" to God"and the Dar al-Harb, or "house of war""those who are at war with God.

History is a perfect example of the hatred and violence that is permeated throughout various Islamic doctrines. During the numerous Islamic conquests in the Middle East, North Africa, India and Europe, not forgetting Islamic Spain, plenty of death and suffering followed. Before the Islamic conquests, the Byzantine, Egypt and parts of North Africa were Christian. The Islamic armies of the Ottoman empire came as far as to the gates of Vienna. The Muslim conquests that went on from 632 to 750 ad is no doubt the biggest expansion of territory in world history, covering the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, almost the entire Iberian Peninsula and as far east as to the Indian subcontinent. This is by far the fastest and biggest expansion in world history.

So what can possibly prompt an undertaking such as this one? To begin with, Islam hated Judaism and Christianity from the start. The Koran urges Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians (Koran 5:51) speaks of "enmity and hatred" with Christians (Koran 5:15) and the Jews (Koran 5:65) who are also to be cursed. The Jews are accused of "creating disorder" (Koran 5:65) and Christians are accused of worshiping their priests (Koran 9:31). The Jews and Christians believe in evil things (Koran 4:52) and Allah"s curse will be upon them (Koran 9:30). Israel has made multiple concessions and efforts to promote a peaceful solution. Why there is still no peace in the Middle East is not because of Israel. There is still war because Israel is hated because it is Jewish. The Quaran is their law - and their law tells them that there can be no peace with Jews.

Due to time constraints, I'll stop it here.
Debate Round No. 1


Islam means submit to Allah, Allah, the Arabic word for God.

Islam forbids rape on Muslim women. Our debate is on Islam, not Prophet Muhammad.

The hadith 4:24 does not portray, or say anything about rape. It says that the women can get married.

Of the thousands of hadith on peace, you misinterpret one and say it is war manual.

Islam does not use theocracy. It uses Shariah law, which is flourishing in countries like Malaysia who use a part of Shariah law.

Islam does not hate Jews, it encourages to be nice to them. All those verses you posted are historical, and are in terms of history. There is war between Israel and Palestine because Israel thinks they can kick out innocent people because their ancestors were kicked out of there house.

Sorry for my short answer, it is hard to type on the Note 4.

Just a side note, ISIS has 30,000 recruits, Islam has 1.7 billion followers. ISIS makes up .01% of all Muslims. And besides, a fourth of the world is Muslim, you really think a fourth of the world will be following something violent?

Another thing is that you cannot just pick a hadith from the Quran from history, you have to understand the hadiths that apply for the future. This also applies for Quranic verses. You have to do tafseer on them to get the meaning.


To begin with, in Islam the life of a non-Muslim is not as sacred as the life of a Muslim. The quote you are does apply to Muslims only. There are other quotes and imperatives used by terrorists in order to invoke their terrorist actions.

Saifullah Sheikh Osama bin Laden, best known for the September 11 attacks, used these particular quotes as justification for his deed.

Qur'an 9:73: "O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is."

Qur'an 5:51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust."

Qur'an 8:39: "And fight them until there"s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah."

Secondly,I object to your demur at the suggestion of raising Muhammed mischief"s up for this debate. I have already stated the central role that Muhammed has in Islam, so you can't just brush aside him as if he is not relevant to this debate. Because of the horrific acts he is culpable for, I might understand why you would want to alienate yourself from him, but for the purpose of this debate, without no justification from your part as to why Muhammed should not be part of this debate, I see no reason why I shouldn't continue bringing up his misconduct since he, in fact, plays a pivotal role in Islam and, frankly, because there is so much fun in bringing to light what an awful person Muhammed really was.

The numerous caravan raids perpetrated by Mohammed of Meccans that passed by Medina, has been used by terrorists for the justification for the attacks of civilians well as military targets. Muhammad (the Uswa Hasana) organised about 64 such raids ranging from 622 CE to 630 CE, of which he personally led 27. Before he engaged in those attacks, Muhammed and his associates arrived and found refuge in Medina in 622. They found shelter because of the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived alongside the Arabs.

Muhammed signed a peace treaty with Banu Quarayza and Banu Nadir along with the other Jewish tribes. However the three leaders of the Jewish tribe were accused by him of breaking the treaty. Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, lose their land and their wealth to the Muslims. Although he claimed that the three leaders alone broke the peace treaty, Muhammed commanded his soldiers to behead all the Jewish men and boys. Those who had not reached adolescence were, however, spared. The non-combatants were slaughtered and the women and children were taken captive by the Muslims and later sold in slave market. As a matter of fact, terrorists to this very day use this hadith as a justification for terrorism against American civilians, among them the notable Omar Bakri who head the islamist organisation Al-Muhajiroun and who has openly supported the London bombings and other terrorists actions.

As narrated by Atiyyah al-Qurazi, survivor and a pretty lucky prepubescent boy at the time: "I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair..." (

There are numerous examples of anti-Semitism within Islamic scriptures. In fact Hamas has justified the killing of Jewish Civilians using the hadith that I am about to show you, which also is included in their Charter. Not just Hamas but many other clerics and scholars have referred to this verse as a justification for the killing of Jews. ( (

Book 041, Number 6985: "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."

I am sorry if I created a confusion surrounding the hadith 4:24. First of all, it is not the hadith but the sura 4:24 (which you noticed). The quote is a description by Abu Dawid of that certain event that took place in which Muhammed answered his, companions whom faced a conundrum about what they were going to do with their captive women, with the Sura 4:24. Muhammed, thus, provided the context for the appropriate course of action in that circumstance by referencing to the Quaran. That settles the context. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands.

As for the historical context, I have now provided you with some of it. Help me try to sort out peace and friendship from the callous murder, looting and enslavement and I will happily concede my point to you.

Due to time constraints, I'll stop it here.
Debate Round No. 2


The top Imams have disagreed with what Osama bin Laden is saying, also Osama bin Laden was not a shiekh, because if he was, he would know what these verses are saying. T

Qur'an 9:73: "O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is."

Okay, now we are talking! You use verses to protect your claim. Unfortunately, you have not given any commentary on these verses, and you do not understand these verses. It is like I pick a concept in a math book, but don"t understand it and attempt to use it.

The verse after this says, [9:74]"They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper."

We can see from this verse that if they repent then they will be forgiven.

[9:73] O Prophet!81 Strive against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe to them.82 Hell shall be their abode; what an evil destination!

This verse is directed to the Prophet Muhammad, who, as history states and provides evidence for, never started a war.

This command enunciated the change of policy towards the hypocrites. Up to this time, leniency was being shown to them for two reasons. First, the Muslims had not as yet become so powerful as to take the risk of an internal conflict in addition to the one with the external enemies. The other reason was to give enough respite to those people who were involved in doubts and suspicions so that they could get sufficient time for attaining to faith and belief. But now the time had come for a change of policy. The whole of Arabia had been subdued and a bitter conflict with the external enemies was about to start; therefore it was required that these internal enemies should be crushed down so that they should not be able to conspire with the external enemies to stir up any internal danger to the Muslims. And now it had become possible to crush them. As regards to the second reason, these hypocrites had been given respite for a period of nine years to observe, to consider and test the right way, and they could have availed of it, if they had any good in them. So there was no reason why any more leniency should be shown to them. Therefore, Allah enjoined the Muslims to treat the hypocrites on one and the same level with the disbelievers and start Jihad against them, and to give up the policy of leniency they had adopted towards them and adopt a fine and stern policy instead.
In this connection, it should also be noted that this verse does not enjoin the Muslims to fight with the hypocrites. It merely meant to end the policy of leniency that had hitherto been adopted towards them. This verse enjoined that they were no more to be considered a part and parcel of the Muslim community, nor were they to be allowed to take part in the management of its affairs, nor consulted about any matter, so that they might not be able to spread the poison of hypocrisy. This changed policy required that the true believers should expose all those, who adopted a hypocritical attitude and conduct and showed in any way that they were not sincere allies to Allah, His Messenger (peace be upon him) and the true Muslims. In short, every Muslim should show by his behavior to such a one that there was no place of honor or respect or trust for a hypocrite in the Muslim society. Besides this, if any one of them was found to be guilty of treachery, there should be no connivance at his crime, nor should he be pardoned but openly tried in a court of law and should be duly punished.
This command was urgently needed at the time it came. Hypocrisy is a plague and a hypocrite is the rat that carries and spreads its germs. Therefore to allow him the freedom of movement in the society is to expose the whole population to the danger of hypocrisy. Likewise, to give a place of honor and prestige to a hypocrite is to encourage many others in hypocrisy and treachery, for this shows that it is not sincerity, true faith, and its welfare that count in it. One may flourish and prosper in it even if one verbally professes to be a Muslim and at the same time indulges in dishonesty and treachery. The Prophet (peace be upon him) has expressed the same thing in a pithy saying. He said, "Whoso honors and respects the inventor of new practices which are un-Islamic, indeed helps to demolish the very structure of Islam."

Qur'an 5:51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust."

You cannot just cherry pick these verses. You have to understand when and for what reason they were revealed.

There is no problem with Muslims being friends with non-Muslims. This is established by the words of Allah Most High Himself when He says:
"Allah does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you due to your faith or driven you out of your homes." Allah loves those who deal justly." Allah only forbids you from those people that fought you because of your faith, drove you out of your homes and helped in your expulsion, that you take them as intimate associates." And whosoever takes them as intimate associates, then it is they who are the wrongdoers." [al-Quran, 60:8-9]
This should set the tone for how we see verse 5:51, which has often been misused to claim that Islam orders Muslims not to have any sort of good relations with non-Muslims at all, an interpretation which is refuted by the above." The verse in question contains the Arabic word Wali, the mistranslation of which to mean "friend" without any further qualification or nuance, is what has caused confusion here.

Qur'an 8:39: "And fight them until there"s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah."

The way you are interpreting this is that Muslim should fight non-stop unless these two conditions are met, but almost all Muslims understand this verse to mean that they can fight to end oppression as well as to establish conditions where they can freely worship God. This is further explained by Hadith where it says that if you see evil, stop it by hand; if you cannot stop it by hand, stop it by your tongue; and if you cannot do that either, then consider that to be evil in your heart. And if you go back to verse 8:34 where kuffar"are warned to"stop preventing Muslims from performing pilgrimage, the latter part of the verse "and religion is for Allah alone," makes perfect sense_ the idea being that in al-Masjid al-Haram only God is to be worshipped [the idea being explicitly stated in verse 2:191 which sets the stage for verse 2:193, which is identical to verse 8:39].

Next time cite your sources, and at least understand the basics of these verses, which the Prophet Muhammad has made clear on what they mean.

Prophet Muhammad was not a violent person, because he never killed unless war was raised upon him.

Cite at least one raid recorded in history, please do not be so general. Do you know what the Makkans did to the early Muslims? The Makkans beat, tutored, killed, boycotted, and kicked out all the Muslims before all what you say about raids happened. Come on, learn your history facts.

The Jews did not only break the treaty, they made a war against the Muslims. This is why so many were killed.


Swedishperspective forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Faisal_Umerani 2 years ago
For dhardage:

Come one dhardage, start proving some of what you write. Tell me your source

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error." (-The Cow, 2:256)

As a Muslim, I stand firmly against blasphemy laws. My faith demands that I do so, for it repeatedly asks me to stand for justice and fight oppression.

The Quran shows us that even though God"s prophets were mocked and threatened, they never killed their accusers for hurting their "religious sentiments." In fact, the Quran opposes any laws that restrain freedom of speech or would have someone killed over differences in belief. Rather, Quran 73:10 says, "Be patient over what they say, and leave them graciously."

Quite frankly, blasphemy and apostasy laws are themselves blasphemous to the teachings of the Qur"an. Not in the traditional sense, but because they violate the very instructions the scripture gives regarding freedom of belief.

Regarding apostasy, in Quran 2:256 God says, "There is no compulsion in matters of faith. The right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces false authorities and becomes at peace with God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Knower."

In a similar vein, verse 109:6 instructs adherents to end a debate by saying: "To you, your belief system. And to me, mine."

If all that isn"t convincing enough, Quran 10:99 should seal the deal: "If your Lord willed, all who are on earth, would have believed (by not providing free will). Would you then, compel people to become believers?"
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
Shariah law demands death for anyone who denies or derides your prophet. That is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of oppression and fear.
Posted by sabrin100 2 years ago
If Islam is such a violent religion , then how come million of people in the world is alive today , intact with their religion . Islam once ruled the world . Hadith is not more violent than Talmud which considers all no -Jewish to beasts .

Hadith says : Those people who do not show kindness to others will not be shown kindness too . Others include both Muslims and non -muslims. This is collaborated by the behavior of the first four Caliphs who said if even a dog died in their empire due to mis-treatment , they would be held accountable . I don't know from which source the quoted hadiths are coming from and if these are authentic .
There are many people in this site , when they analyze their religion , they do it one way , but when they analyze Islam , they do it another way . I want to know why ?
Posted by Faisal_Umerani 2 years ago
"Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."

Please understand this verse, it is for when the Jews violated the treaty of Hudabiyah and then the Jews harmed many Muslims. Therefore the Jews started a war. Now the Muslims were revealed this verse so that they know what to do.

"Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children . . . among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for the rider. A man without a horse got one share"(p. 466).

Please, you need to understand. The Muslims were oppresed in Mecca. And they came to Madinah and then this is for that time. Later on the Muslims tried to go back to Mecca but there was a war and then Muslims had Mecca once again.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Within these examples is a Qur'anic verse--and there's more available. As for the Hadith, it's an absolutely integral part of Islamic belief.

In fact, according to Islamic scholars--the Hadith is the source of "moral inspiration" and "guidance" for a Muslim.

I guess Hamas and other terrorist groups must read it regularly then.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Actually, your "holy scripture" outlines a very different story--as well as historical "fact".

Both the Qur'an and the Hadith explicitly state that all three tribes were attacked and that it was offensive warfare.

For example, Ibn Ishaq states:

"Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children . . . among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for the rider. A man without a horse got one share"(p. 466).

(Ibn Ishaq:461)

"After the siege exhausted and terrorized them, the Jews felt certain that the Apostle would not leave them until he had exterminated them. So they decided to talk to Ka'b Asad. He said, 'People of the Jews, you see what has befallen you. I shall propose three alternatives. Take whichever one you please.' He said, 'Swear allegiance to this man and accept him; for, by Allah, it has become clear to you that he is a prophet sent from Allah. It is he that you used to find mentioned in your scripture book. Then you will be secure in your lives, your property, your children, and your wives.'"

This particular verse highlights the fact the Jewish tribes were the ones attacked--because they refused to recognise Muhammed as a prophet and covert the Islam:

(Ibn Ishaq :462/Tabari VIII:30)

A reference in the Qur'an of the violence directed towards Jewish people:

(Qur'an 33:26)

"Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."

An example of Islamic intolerance towards the Jews:

(Tabari VIII:28)

"When the Messenger approached the Jews, he said, 'You brothers of apes! Allah shamed you and cursed you.'"
Posted by Faisal_Umerani 2 years ago
"I suppose what I am getting at is can you tolerate, living, working and sharing equally with a person of colour red, if you are colour blue without trying to change his colour?"

That is what Islam teaches...

Bro you are good at debating, could you give me some secret tips and tricks since I am on the speech and debate team.
Posted by Faisal_Umerani 2 years ago
For Emilrose:

All those tribes started the fight, there is no evidence Muslims ever started a fight in that time period! And the tribes had an agreement, which was violated, and it started a conflict.

If the hadith is not in the two books:

Bukhari and Muslim

Then the hadith may not be authentic, and besides, this argument is on Islam. Not whether some random Muslims killed people! Jews and Christians also kill!

"And btw--I AM talking about Islam, and more precisely its "prophet"."

Islam is based on the Quran, and so far you have not yet once stated an argument from/using the Quran.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
The ideology is one of conquest.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Incorrect. The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza was in fact attacked by Muhammed--completely unprovoked. The Hadith outlined that all of the men belonging to the tribe were killed and beheaded (700 to 900) and that the property was then stolen and women and children taken captives.

Two other Jewish tribes were attacked--it seems you've ignored the assertion the non-Muslim Arab tribes, Christians, and Pagans were also targeted.

And btw--I AM talking about Islam, and more precisely its "prophet".
No votes have been placed for this debate.