Islam is the most vile ideology in human history
Debate Rounds (5)
Whilst I personally have my share of misgivings with Islam and organised religion in general, I believe calling it "the most vile ideology in human history" is a dramatic exaggeration and will explain why in my later arguements
Best of luck to my opponent.
An ideology is defined as "A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." which therefore means that any major political, or religous movement, could be considered an ideology.
And by "vile" I am assuming that you are using the "morally debased, depraved, or despicable" definition of vile, therefore that is the definition of which I will use
So, let's see some citations of what I would claim are the most vile ideology in human history, Nazism (Whilst some would argue Communism may have killed more, there were many more Communist Nations that Nazist ones, and the intentions of the Communist Manifesto were undoubtedly not as toxic as that of Mein Kampf)
"...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. ",
In this we see that the writer of the holy book for Nazism sees a group of people as being the living incarnation of the devil itself, this is by far the highest level of dehumanization one can have set up oneself, especially considering the highly religous nature of Europe during the period in which Mein Kampf was published.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Here we see further justification for actions of violence against Jews, Hitler claims that he has the divine right bestowed upon him to "fight Jews" which we all know means to kill them
Now, lets do some math on the fatalities by the followers of these two different ideologies
Now, its incredibly difficult to put a number on roughly how many people Islam has killed, but much easier for Nazism I will admit. But the most liberal estimate which also includes many deaths which I would say were not entirely motivated by Islam, is 270 million people
Lets set the start date for Islam as when the archangel Gabriel allegedly gave his revelations to Muhammad, 610 AD.
So over the course of 1506 years Islam has killed about 270 million people, or 0.179 a year (I had to use a calculator for this obviously)
now, Nazism has truly only ever had one state, the Third Reich, of which lasted for a meager 12 years.
Now, lets calculate the deaths blamed for Nazi Germany, using the same measurements used for the calculated deaths due to Islam, which include all civilian and military casualties related to wars originating from the ideology, of which the most obvious would be WW2. Over the course of WW2, a total of roughly 48 million people died, and if we disclude people who died in the Eastern theater, we would be left with around 45-46 million people.
So that means that Nazism killed a total of 3.75 people a year based on the most liberal estimate of the total deaths, compared to a 0.179 people a year from Islam.
And while we are talking about Islam, the Qu'ran does have some moral teachings which I and many others who are skeptical of Islam would agree are morally acceptable within Western nations and are considered good moral lessons that everyone would follow in an ideal society.
"Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (17:26 - 27)"
"And be moderate (or show no arrogance) in your walking, and lower your voice [Luqmaan 31:19]"
"Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein, and whoever recommends and helps an evil cause shares in its burdens" Qur"an:4:85"
"Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful."
MORALLY DUBIOUS BIBLE QUOTES:
Now, Christianity has many extremely controversial and morally dubious parts of the Bible, many of which could be cited to prove that Christianity could be considered near as vile as Islam, based on what you consider vile about Islam and what the majority of the western population would consider morally unacceptable
Like Islam, Christianity also gives men superiority over women, whilst not explicitly stating that women are allowed to be hurt by men, it also justifies war crimes
""I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) "
""Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) "
The Bible explicitly justifies war crimes and group punishment. Similar to what Nazi Germany routinely did to French and Polish villages who dared tried to resist the Nazi regime
""This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3) "
The Bible also contains lots of over-excessive punishment for incredibly trivial acts.
"Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV"
"Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV"
The Bible also tells slaves to obey their masters, which is pretty messed up as it was justifying the terrible conditions the majority of slaves are kept in, if the Bible was such a great book that taught good morals presumably it would denounce humans keeping absolute control over other humans.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT"
In the Bible, the punishment of death is suggested for fairly minor crimes, zoophilia is given as a grounds for execution, but even more oddly so, sons being rebellious to their parents or society in general justifies getting stoned in the medieval way as opposed to the Colorado way. The punishment of death for merely being a mopy teenager is absolutely absurd
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21"
"If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15 NLT"
The Bible is also pretty mean to disabled people, by saying that they can't touch anything holy and that you aren't allowed into heaven if your penis isn't intact.
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV"
"Whosoever " hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken " He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV|
- The Gideons memory Holy Bible
- Mein Kampf
- The Qu'ran
First of all, the only reason that communism and naziism killed more people on average than Islam is because no Islamic dictyator was ever lkeft in charge of any major nation, if Isl ruled the US, the earth would cease to exist in 1 year, that's 7 billion deaths in 1 second.
You claim that no Islamic dictator has ever controlled a major nation, but that is utterly false.
Whilst many of the examples I use may not fit the absolute definition of a dictator, as the word "dictator" pertains to nations without hereditary succession laws, however the examples I use will give examples of nations in which all the nations power lays in the hands of one man, which are Muslim.
The Ummayyad Caliphate (661-750) Was a Muslim dynasty which, at its peak stretched all the way from South-Eastern Afghanistan to North-Western Portugal, and they killed nowhere near as many as the USSR or Nazi Germany did, despite having existed significantly longer than Nazi Germany, having conquered much more and presumably had more people under its rule. They were relatively religiously tolerant, they did force non-Muslims to pay a head tax, but they didn't harm them en masse.
The Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258) The caliphate which overthrew the Ummayyad's and stretched from Kazakhstan to Sicily at it's peak, and whilst there are really no estimates of the total casualties caused by them, however, based on what few numbers are available, there were seemingly only a few military campaigns undergone by the Abbasids in their long history, including the Byzantine-Arab wars, the Kazakh-Arab wars and the two conquests of Asia minor. Based on what very little and unreliable information there is on the casualties I am going to guess that around 1 million people were killed over the 508 years the Abbasid's existed, that's less than the U.S.A, the British Empire, The Third Reich, The Spanish empire, and the USSR, this Muslim country stretched across all of the middle east, over half the Maghreb, and a significant chunk of Central Asia, and there has most likely not been any major world power in history that the Abbasid's came even close to matching in fatalities due to their intervention. The Abbasid Caliphate is also known for ushering in a golden age of scientific discovery in the Middle East.
Ottoman Empire(1299-1922) The Ottoman empire went from Albania to Southern Saudi Arabia at its height, and whilst they are generally speaking one of the more brutal Islamic empires, having committed their far share of genocides and conquest,however, they most likely killed less people than the British empire, and killed less people than the 3rd Reich did over the course of a meager 12 years.
So claiming that major nations founded on Muslim ideologies can not work and would lead to world destruction are utterly false, to this day there are still major international players of which are Muslim theocracies, and there has always been global powers who were Muslim theocracies, your claims about Muslims ruling resulting to literally everyone in the world dying are an absolutely absurd kind of mental gymnastics, and can be proven incorrect using obvious examples from history.
By major nation I meant a super-power, no Musli nation was ever a super power save the Ottoman Empire, which was still at most a tenth the size of the Brittish Empire. Committing atrocities such as the Armenian Genocide. By the way, Adolf Hitler supported establishing the Muslim Brotherhood. So Nazism and Islam seem to like eachother.
Are you joking?
A superpower is defined as "a very powerful and influential nation (used especially with reference to the US and the former Soviet Union when these were perceived as the two most powerful nations in the world)." So therefore we can assume any Muslim nation significantly influential historically which was incredibly powerful could be considered a superpower.
The Abbasids and Umayyads where, by all means two perfect examples of superpowers, the Umayyad's stretched all the way from India to Spain, making it one of the largest land empires of all time, and by all means a superpower. The Abbasids routinely fought the Byzantines and managed to conquer vast swathes of land in the Mediterranean and Asia Minor, making them too a fairly significant superpower.
The Seventh Crusade was based in Egypt against the Ayyubid and Bahri Mamulks caliphate whom fought the French and the Knights Templar, and the Muslims managed to retain a decisive victory.
Speaking of the Mamluks, they would definitely have been considered a superpower. They controlled all the Levant, Hejaz, and a good chunk of Northern Africa. They managed to establish dynasties of the ruling classes family in India and they managed to expluse the crusaders from The Holy Land. Expulsion of a combination of major European powers from The Holy Land would definitely give them the title of a "superpower"
To claim that there has never been a Muslim superpower other than the Ottomans is completely false.
Alright let's start this over, we are supposed to be examining the ideology of Islam, not the practice of Islam, being the only ideology to tolerate FGM, and the only one whose founded had his soldiers rape w9omen in front of their husbands, this is far wose than any ideology that I know of.
I am fully aware of that, perhaps you should not have brought the debate to the topic of how the ideology was practiced if you wanted to remain on the initial topic of the ideology itself. And I am aware that was the initial point of the debate, that is why I gave examples of worse ideologies than Islam and evidence that ,whilst having elements of it that I would argue are incredibly sexist, homophobic and opposed to general western liberal ideologies, still does have elements in which promote helping the poor, being kind and neighborly, and being humble. These are not things preached in Mein Kampf, something which acts as a holy book of sorts for Nazism, and many of the worst elements of Islam are prevalent in Christianity too.
>being the only ideology to tolerate FGM, and the only one whose founded had his soldiers rape w9omen in front of their husbands, this is far wose than any ideology that I know of.
The founder of Nazism started the biggest war in human history and gassed an estimated 6 million Jews, I would say this is much, much worse.
And, as stated before, Islam does have elements to it which do encourage you to be neighborly, which do encourage you to charitable, an which do encourage you to be what most codes of morals would consider you to be an ideal being.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 6 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro explains that Islam allows immoral acts such as wife beating, raping, murder, lying, and stealing. Con responds by saying that Nazism has *more* immorality than Islam as it causes more suffering in terms of taking lives than Islam. Con explains this by showing that Nazisms' danger is 3.75 million lives per year, whilst Islam's in 0.179 million per year. Nazism is the cause of more suffering, thus Islam isn't the worst. This is a good calculation as it shows how many deaths are a direct result of the ideology, thus accurately quantifying the immorality. Con also explains that the Quran has good virtues contained therein. Which is a good argument, for I can't consider an ideology that espouses good virtues as the most vile ideology ever. Pro's only response is that Islam has never had a dictator or a superpower which Con shows is false by giving examples of multiple Islamic dictatorships and Islamic superpowers. In the end, Pro fails to defeat Con's arguments while Con defeats Pro's.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.