The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Islam promotes lying and killing disbelievers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,886 times Debate No: 61384
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)




David and I had a discussion in the comments of an old debate and that is why I am challenging him to a debate on this topic: Islam protes lying (deception) and the killing of disbelievers.

Since the Islam is a very wide subject, I suggest we limit the debate to these two points (deception and Jihad) and do not expand the scope of this debate to other topics related to Islam.

The debate will be as follows:
Round 1 Acceptance
Round 2 Initial arguments
Round 3 and 4 Rebuttals
Round 5 Final Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments allowed)

I look forward to an interesting and enlightening debate.


Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


Allegations have been made against Islam that a doctrine called ‘Taqiyya’ (meaning deception) is permissible to be used in the spreading of faith.

I’ll start of by quoting Thomas Carlyle (May 8, 1940) in his lecture: THE HERO AS PROPHET. MAHOMET: ISLAM

“Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only. …… It is really time to dismiss all that. The word this man spoke has been the life-guidance now of a hundred and eighty millions of men these twelve hundred years. These hundred and eighty millions were made by God as well as we. A greater number of God’s creatures believe in Mahomet’s word at this hour, than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the Almighty have lived by and died by? I, for my part, cannot form any such supposition. I will believe most things sooner than that. One would be entirely at a loss what to think of this world at all, if quackery so grew and were sanctioned here.”

Meanwhile, even more people have become Muslim. If propagation of Islam was all based on deception, wouldn’t people find out sooner or later about the lies and evil of Islam? Why is Islam then still a growing religion? You would expect it to become smaller as time progresses.

Then, often a verse from the Quran is pointed out, referring to this subject:

“Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed — save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith — but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment.” Quran 16:107

Here, the Quran is referring to apostates. Allah says he will punish apostates (himself, no reference to any corporal punishment is made). An exception is made for people who are forced to recant their faith, but in their hearts are still believers. A few verses onwards it says:

“Then, surely, thy Lord — to those who fled their homes after they had been persecuted and then struggled hard in the cause of Allah and remained steadfast — aye, surely, after that thy Lord is Most Forgiving, Merciful.” [Quran 16:111]

Here the Quran says that these people who were persecuted for their religion (which lead to forceful recantation), will eventually be forgiven after they have fled from these dangerous circumstances. This means that the recantation mentioned above is still a sin, but it will be forgiven after migration.

Furthermore, the Quran constantly forbids the use of lies and deception categorically. There are numerous verses which explicitly forbid lying. The hypocrites mentioned in the Quran are the worst kind of people. In the opening verses of chapter 2 (surat al-Baqarah, 2:3-21) three groups of people are described: the believers, the disbelievers and the hypocrites. The hypocrites will get even greater punishments than the disbelievers. How can it be acceptable then that Muslims use lies to propagate their faith and become hypocrites? (1)

“O ye who believe! be strict in observing justice, and be witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or against parents and kindred. Whether he be rich or poor, Allah is more regardful of them both than you are. Therefore follow not low desires so that you may be able to act equitably. And if you conceal the truth or evade it, then remember that Allah is well aware of what you do.” [Quran 4:136]

Even when it comes to the enemies of Islam, the Quran teaches to be just:

“O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.” [Quran 5:9]

Another two verses telling Muslims to do as they say and not be a hypocrite:

“O ye who believe! Why do you say what you do not do?” [Quran 61:3]

“Most hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” [Quran 61:4]

Another misconception about Islam is Jihad. People in the west generally believe that Jihad is the Holy War of the Muslims against all disbelievers. These disbelievers should be wiped out by force. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are three types of Jihad in Islam: Jihad Akbar (greatest jihad), Jihad Kabeer (great jihad) and Jihad asghar (lesser jihad).

The greatest Jihad is against one’s self. It is the Jihad of self-reformation, to control one’s sinful inclinations. It is considered the most difficult Jihad and has the greatest rewards. (2)

The great Jihad is the propagation of Islam, by peaceful means:

“strive against them by means of the Quran with a mighty striving.” [Quran 25:53]

It becomes clear from this verse that the propagation of Islam should be done with the Quran, with the teachings from the Quran. No use of force, deception, killing, etc. is mentioned here.

Then it comes to the lesser or small Jihad. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad came back from battle, he is once reported to have said: “We are returning from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad”. (3) The (defensive) war that was fought out, is named the lesser Jihad and the propagation of Islam is the greater Jihad.

When it comes to the lesser Jihad, the Quran mentioned defensive warfare in several verses:
“And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.“ [Quran 2:191]

“Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them. Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said,’Our lord is Allah’. And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is indeed, Powerful, Mighty.” [Quran 22:40-41]

These two verses are quite clear on this matter: fighting is only allowed as a defensive measure. The Quran also states:

“This is a perfect Book;” [Quran 2:3]

“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are firm and decisive in meaning – they are the basis of the Book – and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations.” [Quran 3:8]

This means that there cannot be contradiction (which would cause it to be imperfect). It also says that there are verses that have multiple interpretations and verses which have one interpretation. It is quite clear that the verses named above have one interpretation: war is an act of defence in Islam. Therefore any other verses that mention warfare have to be taken into context and cannot be interpreted in a way that causes contradiction, since that would make the Quran imperfect.

The Quran definitely does not promote the use of deception and lies to propagate the message of Islam. Islam also does not propagate terrorism and the killing of disbelievers.


Note on the numbering of Quranic verses: The numbering might differ from other sources. This is because the verse “bismillah…” is considered the first verse of every chapter, except surat al-Taubah which does not start with this verse. Therefore, subtract 1 from the number to find the corresponding verse.


I would point out that you wanted to limit our debate to two particular areas regarding Islam, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam permitting Muslims to use deception about their beliefs or deception in Islam as a general topic, and Jihad as it relates to Muslims engaging in warfare to kill and subjecate non-Muslims, which the quotation from Thomas Carlyle says nothing. I could have a whole debate disputing his contention. Anyhow, since you see fit to cite him, I will offer this quote by him saying, "...I must say, it [the Koran] is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; " insupportable stupidity, in short! Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran . . . It is the confused ferment of a great rude human soul; rude, untutored, that cannot even read; but fervent, earnest, struggling vehemently to utter itself in words...". [1] Hardly a ringing of endorsement.

So your defense against there being deception practiced by Muslims in regard to non-Muslims, falls on the claim to being the fasted growing religion, which I would argue is mostly the results of higher birthrates in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. You have to contrast this with a strong secular tradition in the West, which has gravitated away from religion. The Pew Forum noted, "Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce. What little information is available suggests that there is no substantial net gain or loss in the number of Muslims through conversion globally; the number of people who become Muslims through conversion seems to be roughly equal to the number of Muslims who leave the faith." [2]

To speak of deception, allow me to point out that allah is ironically the best deceiver according to the Qu'ran, which would certainly cast doubts on his being the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses. See S. 3:54, [3] S. 7:99, [4] S. 8:30, [5] S. 10:21, [6] & S. 13:42. [7] Also, allah supposedly created Christianity through deception by supposedly making it appear Christ died on the cross (S. 4-191-192 [8]) and he also deceived Muslims (S. 8:43-44 [9]). There are three verses in the Qu'ran permitting Muslims to break oaths (S. 2:225 [10]) and two verse in the Qu'ran permitting the use of Taqiyaa (S. 3:28 [11] & S. 16:106 [12]). Muhammad is quoted in the Sunna saying, "War is deceit" [13] and if Islam considers Al-Fitnah (disbelief) as something constituting aggression, and are commanded to fight and kill as a result, then it follows that deceiving unbelievers would be permissable. According to the Sunna, Muhammad permitted Muslims to commit cold-blooded murders of people for the trivial offense of insult by allowing them to lie (Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271 [14] & Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369 [15]). There were 43 assassination carried out on orders from Muhammad. We find lying is permissable for Muslim men who can falsely claim marriage to a woman if they can simply produce two false witnesses (Sahih Bukhari 9:86:98 [16]). We find support for it among classical Sunni Islamic scholars, such as Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari, [17] "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. " Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers " except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them." Muhammad bin Aqeel Shaafiyee said, "I say our scholars agree on the fact that when needed, telling a lie is allowed, and this is Taqiyyah. But if we name this Taqiyyah, a lot of the scholars raise an objection, since Shi'as use this term. So the difference between Shi'a and Sunni is only the word difference." [18] So there is quite a body of evidence in Islam that Taqiyya is permissable.

There are numerous examples of the deception in the West; most notable is the case of Anwar al-Awlaki. For four years, al-Awlaki served as imam of the Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque at the edge of San Diego, California, where he had a following of 200"300 people. Two of the 9/11 hijackers attended his mosque and met with him personally. He served as the vice-president of a "charity" called Charitable Society for Social Welfare that many years later the FBI would disclose was a front for funding Islamic terrorism abroad. Amazingly he served as imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque near Falls Church, Virginia while also leading academic discussions frequented by FBI Director of Counter-Intelligence for the Middle East, and served as the Muslim chaplain at George Washington University. The dissimulation was evident in an interview he gave saying, "There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion." The New York Times said at the time that he was "held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West." He even gave a presentation at the Pentagon on "moderate Islam!" He was the first imam to conduct a prayer service for the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association at the U.S. Capitol on behalf of staffers and the infamous Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His mosque was also visited by Nidal Malik Hasan, who carried out a massacre at Fort Hood. Moving to the UK for several months, he gave talks to up to 200 youths at a time. He urged young Muslim followers: "The important lesson to learn here is never, ever trust a kuffar [non-Muslim]. Do not trust them! He gave a series of lectures in December 2002 and January 2003 at the London Masjid al-Tawhid mosque, describing the rewards martyrs receive in paradise. He was a "distinguished guest" speaker at the UK's Federation of Student Islamic Societies' (FOSIS) annual dinner in 2003. He began a grand lecture tour of Britain, from London to Aberdeen, as part of a campaign by the Muslim Association of Britain. He also lectured for the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), based at the East London Mosque, and appeared at an event at the East London Mosque in which he told his audience: "A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim" he does not betray him, and he does not hand him over" You don't hand over a Muslim to the enemies." Al-Awlaki returned to Yemen in early 2004, and lived in his ancestral village in the southern province of Shabwa with his wife and five children. He lectured at Iman University, headed by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani. The latter has been included on the UN 1267 Committee's list of individuals belonging to or associated with al-Qaeda. Some believe that the school's curriculum deals mostly, if not exclusively, with radical Islamic studies, and that it is an incubator of radicalism. On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested with four others on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and participating in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a US military attach". He was imprisoned in 2006 and 2007, reportedly under American pressure on the Yemeni authorities. His name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen. After 18 months in a Yemeni prison, al-Awlaki was released on December 12, 2007, following the intercession of his tribe. According to a Yemeni security official, this indicated the US did not insist on his incarceration, and that he said he repented. Moazzam Begg's Cageprisoners, an organization representing former Guantanamo detainees, campaigned for al-Awlaki's release when he was in prison in Yemen. Shortly after his release, Begg obtained an exclusive telephone interview with him. According to Begg, prior to his incarceration in Yemen, al-Awlaki had condemned the 9/11 attacks. In December 2008, al-Awlaki sent a communique to the Somalian terrorist group, al-Shabaab, congratulating them. He thanked them for, "giving us a living example of how we as Muslims should proceed to change our situation. The ballot has failed us, but the bullet has not." In conclusion, he wrote: "if my circumstances would have allowed, I would not have hesitated in joining you and being a soldier in your ranks." Al-Awlaki provided al-Qaeda members in Yemen with the protection of his powerful tribe, the Awlakis, against the government. By December 2009, al-Awlaki was on the Yemen government's most-wanted list. In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the US to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated: "To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim." In July 2010, a Seattle cartoonist was warned by the FBI of a death threat against him issued by al-Awlaki in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire. Eight other cartoonists, journalists, and writers from Britain, Sweden and Denmark were also threatened with death. "The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad", al-Awlaki wrote. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan." In 2010 it was reported that the London-based Islam Channel had in 2009 carried advertisements for DVDs of al-Awlaki's sermons and for at least two events at which he was to speak via video link. In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation", and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: "Don't consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil.." [18]
Debate Round No. 2


You started off by questioning the relevancy of the quote from Thomas Carlyle. The topic was deceit, and that’s why this quote was relevant. The Holy Prophet Muhammad is considered the best example of a Muslim and Aisha mentions that Muhammad is the living Quran. (Bukhari) Furthermore, you quoted Carlyle regarding the Quran. However, in the following few paragraphs he mentions that his knowledge is limited and the Arabs know better (meaning people with knowledge of the Arabic language). Then he continues to mention that he did not find any traces of deceit on Muhammad’s part. [1]

Then you countered my argument of Islam being a growing religion. You say that the Islam is only growing because of higher birth rates and there is no net increase in Muslims based on conversion. You name the Pew Forum as a source. Many other sources however claim otherwise, namely that Islam does gain more converts than other religions, however, admitting numbers are hard to estimate. [2-4]

Your next argument is based on several verses which you have referred to. I cannot quote all the verses’ translations due to the character limit, so I will only state my commentary.

3:54 – No reference to deceit in this verse. It says that Allah had his own plans (saving Jesus from death on the cross) to counter the plan of the Jews (crucifying Jesus).

7:99 – Again no reference to deception. The verse talks about disbelieving people that do not fear Allah (because he could punish them at any moment for their disbelief).

8:30 – This verse again (just like 3:54) refers to Allah’s plans regarding the protection of his prophet Muhammad against the plans of the Meccans. No deception involved.

10:21 – Another reference to the plans of god, not talking about deception.

13:42 – Reference to the omniscience of Allah. Men can scheme all they want, but Allah knows of these plans and they will not be able to stop Allah from reaching His goal: the ultimate victory of Islam. (by turning people’s hearts towards Islam)

Nowhere in these listed verses there is reference to deceiving. Allah is the one that men are trying to deceive in most of these verses, but Allah says that their plans will not harm him at all. It also seems that you are confusing the word ‘to plan’ with ‘to deceive’. If I plan that I want to study and work at a certain place in a certain profession, this would not be deception. The same goes for God’s plans.

Then you mention the crucifixion of Jesus. The verses are 4:157-158. The deception here comes not from Allah, but the Jews deceived themselves. They were so crazy in their happiness that they did not confirm his death, which would have proved that he was still alive. The translation literally mentions this:

“they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it.” (5)

The events which are mentioned in verses 8:43-44 are a description of the Battle of Badr. Historical descriptions reveal that the Meccans hid part of their army to deceive the Muslims so that they would engage in battle and then the rest of the Meccans would reveal themselves (they hid so that the big army of the Meccans would not scare the Muslims off). Again, the deception comes not from Allah. (6)

After this you mention some verses regarding the breaking of oaths:

2:226 – Allah says here that we will not be held accountable for certain oaths. If you read the verse preceding this one, it becomes clear which oaths. “And make not Allah a target for your oaths that you may thereby abstain from doing good and acting righteously and making peace between men.” (7) This means that if you take an oath to do something bad (for example committing murder) and then you break that oath, you will not be held accountable.

3:28 – In this verse it is mentioned that Muslims should prefer Muslim friends. It is obvious that one’s friends influence his or her behavior. That is why Muslims are taught to have Muslims as friends so they can have a good influence on each other. Then there is a warning that Muslims should watch out for deception from the disbelievers, who will try to break your faith. No permission to lie or deceive is given here, only a warning to be cautious.

16:106 – The fact that you mention this verse, suggests you haven’t even read my argument. I mentioned this verse explicitly*. To summarize, it is said that the punishment for this lie will be postponed and forgiven if the people who lied migrate away to a safe(r) place. (In verse 16:111) There is no permission given to lie and deceive in general.

Pro also mentions some hadith which mention Muhammad saying: “War is deceit.” The Arabic words mention that war itself is deceit, not that deception is used in war. Furthermore even if this is to be taken literally, the ‘deception’ comes from surprise attacks and ambushes (killing only those who fight). Hadith mention that deception as luring the enemy in as if one is surrendering and then proceeding to kill, is not allowed. So it is clear that this ‘deception’ is strictly limited to tactics of war, and does not apply to conduct. (8)

Pro proceeds to mention that al-Fitnah is considered aggression in Islam. When we look up the meaning of fitnah in Lane it says that the meaning is ‘to burn’ and extends this to a metaphorical meaning ‘to enter into fire’, ‘to enter in a state of punishment’ or ‘to be put to a trial’. (9) So Fitnah refers to any challenge that a Muslim faces, not disbelief. And Islam tells us to do Jihad in this case. And as I have already explained this is self-reformation (successfully completing the trial) and propagating Islam (by being an example for everyone else). Fitnah is therefore not seen as a form of aggression, but as a test, which Muslims need to pass by staying strong in their belief.

The next example that is mentioned is that of the assassination of Ka’b bin Ashraf. This individual was a big and influential enemy of Islam. Religious opposition was no problem and was allowed, and he used this right of his for many years. But after Islam had grown so much and had even beaten the Quraish and conquered Mecca, he started to incite people to wage war and create disorder. He even planned to assassinate Muhammad which failed. Eventually after much counselling Muhammad agreed to have Ka’b executed on charges of infraction of treaty, rebellion, inciting war, sedition, use of foul language and conspiracy to assassinate Muhammad. To do this publicly would cause much disorder and unrest, which is after more counseling Muhammad agreed to a plan which involved Ka’b being lured away and killed. (10) This situation was very complicated and required special measures, since the stability of the state was involved.

Pro proceeds to mention ‘assassinations’ ordered by Muhammad. He was the democratically chosen leader of Medina. People also appointed him as judge. These ‘assassinations’ were verdicts of court and were for crimes that these individuals had committed.

Pro also mentions some hadith that apparently permit lying to trick a woman into marriage. The hadith mentioned nowhere that lying is permissible. They merely mentioned that the two witnesses lie. The judge cannot look into people’s minds and know that they are lying, so he has to order the marriage to be valid. It is obvious that by lying these people are committing sins which they will be held accountable for on the Day of Judgment. (11)

Then Pro quotes the ‘verdict’ of some scholars who mention that lying is permissible. These scholars are not God. The Quran is the word of God and cannot be superseded by these scholars. This ‘verdict’ of these scholars causes many contradictions (for example with the verses I have provided in round 2) and cannot be correct. The verses that I have quoted mention that one should always act with justice, even when it comes to enemies.

Therefore, the conclusion is that this ‘body of evidence’ is very weak and pulled out of context as I have explained above.

The final paragraph is all about one individual who is supposed to have practiced this doctrine of ‘Taqiyyah’. The fact that he turned out to be associated with terrorist groups points that the character of this man is bad. That being said, many of the so called ‘scholars’ or mullahs nowadays are extremists and terrorists and are prime examples of hypocrites (Munafikuun). They say one thing, but do another. They are clearly not the believers, since their actions are contradicting the Quran in countless places. They cannot be considered the example of a Muslim. The Quran and the example of the Holy Prophet Muhammad is the basis of Islam and that is what Muslims are supposed to follow, not the example of some extremist Mullah.


  1. 1.

  2. 2. Guinness Book of World Records 2003

  3. 3.

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

  6. 6.

  7. 7.

  8. 8. (pages 307-311)

  9. 9.

  10. 10. pages 297-307 of no. 8

  11. 11.

* There is a difference of numbering in verses in the source that I have used. This is because the opening verse (bismillah…) has been counted as the first verse of every chapter except surat al-taubah, which does not start with this verse. Therefore subtract 1 from the number of the verse.



A Rebuttal to 'Greater Jihad vs. Lesser Jihad'

This is a prime example of Taqiyya in practice and I would ask anyone following the debate to pay close attention to my opponents claim and my response. Jihad has always referred to religious holy war against non-Muslims. This claim of a Greater Jihad and a Lesser Jihad has no basis in Islamic teaching and the only time you encounter such a preposterous assertion is when a Muslim apologist is addressing a Western audience of non-Muslims. It comes from an 11th century book called "The History of Baghdad" by Islamic scholar al-Khatib al-Baghdadiis, by way of Yahya ibn al 'Ala'. This Hadith is considered a fabrication in Islam and it contradicts authentic (Sahih) Hadiths; none of the four sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence nor the Shi'ite tradition have any such teaching. My opponent is deliberately spreading a falsehood and attempting to mislead people.

According to Shaikh Abdullah Faisal: "Related by Khateeb in The History of Baghdad 2/193. He also said it was a fabricated hadith. The above-mentioned fabricated hadith gives preference to the method of da'wah over jihad for spreading Islam. However, the best method for spreading Islam is jihad and not da'wah. Thus the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) spent thirteen years in Makkah giving da'wah and only approximately one hundred people embraced Islam. But when he (s.a.w) entered Makkah with military might and Shawka (power) two thousand took their Shahadah in one day. The Mujahideen conquer lands and save the entire populace from entering Hell-fire by delivering Islam to them. This accomplishment is much greater than what books can do. Also this fabricated hadith contradicts the Holy Qur'an: Surah An Nisa verse 95: "Not equal are those of the believers who sit at home(except those who are disabled by injury or are blind or lame), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit at home."" [1]

According to Ibn Taymiyyah: "There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].' This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind." [2]

My opponent also paraphrases a verse from the Qu'ran translating it as "strive against them by means of the Quran with a mighty striving." This is completely wrong and misleading. Muhammad should "strive against" the unbelievers "with the utmost strenuousness" and in Arabic "jihad against them a great jihad." My opponent has managed to take a quranic verse regarding holy war against non-Muslims and twist it around by essentially editing it a bit and then drawing false conclusions about it meaning no use of force even though it doesn't say this by any means. The he moves to another verse (2:191), but doesn't bother giving the full context (2:190-193). Two points - the stipulation of this verse was abrogated by 9:1 and 2:193 provides what exactly constitutes aggression. 2:191 was 'revealed' when Muhammad left Meeca with only 100 followers after 13 years of al-Dawha in Meeca and moved to Medina. The later revelation in Sura 9 made void any such stipulation. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that this verse was abrogated by 9:1 (Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun [polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah]), with whom you made a treaty., which voids every treaty between the Muslims and nonbelievers. [3] So what constitutes aggression? 2:193 tells us "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers "until God alone is worshipped." [4] Islamic sources confirm that unbelief is the worst of sins and constitutes rebellion against Islam's allah and therefore your unbelief constitutes aggression in and of itself. Muhammad himself made this clear in the Hadith, "I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah." [5] 22:40-41 is, according to Islamic sources, the first verse giving Muslims permission to wage war and this was cited in Bin Laden's 2002 to the American people. 22:42-48 detail how ultimately infidels will be destroyed. As for the Qu'ranic claim to be a "perfect book," my Thomas Carlyle quote would suggest otherwise and I could easily dispute this and have an entire debate showing how this claim is simply untrue.

What is Jihad?

Jihad is a continuous total war against all unbelievers until all of humanity is either converted, slaughtered, or the subject to Islam. The Qu'ran and the Sunna are very clear on this point. The entire world is divided into two categories: Dar al-Islam is the territories ruled my Muslims and Dar al-Harb (territory of war) are all the territories controlled by the infidels that are fair game for attack. Those who do not believe in "Allah and his messenger, Muhammad" potentially face a perpetual war of aggression. One of the best examples of this in the world today is the relentless Jihad to conquer and destroy Israel. History demonstrates this fact when following the death of Muhammad, the companions of Muhammad with their Islamic ghazis conquered North Africa without even the slighest hint of hostility from any of those nations or people. Spain, France, and Siciliy posed no type of threat and yet all of them faced attacked by Muslims. In the end, these wars were for conquest, for war booty, slaves, plunder, and all the other evils it entails.

4:74 tells us "Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah whether he is slain or gets victory soon shall We give him a reward of great (value)." The Mujahid is a terrorist since the Qu'ran provides him with a belief that if killed, he will have instant access to a paradise of endless sexual and carnal pleasure and if he isn't kill he is promised female sex slaves and loot. The concept of becoming a martyr (Shaheed) is the highest aspiration in Islam. 4:76 says "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

4:95 says ""Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard [al mujahidoon] in Allah's Cause [fi sabil Allah] with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard [al mujahideen] and fight with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers those who strive hard [al mujahideen] and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward." The Qu'ran makes it clear that those who participate in Jihad have a higher status in Islam than those who do not. They have the guarantee of paradise (jannah) as well as allah's abundance of endless, unlimited pleasures denied in this life as haram.

9:5 says "But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay [fa'qtuloo] 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.." This is the infamous aya of the Sword. Here is a clear mandate to wage Jihad against unbelievers until they become Muslim. This is the mercy and forgiveness of allah! It is interesting that Muhammad and his followers routinely attacked unsuspecting caravans during the forbidden month of Ramadhan, which was a tradition of the pagan Arabs. 9:29 says "Slaughter those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." This firmly establishes the doctrine of total war.

This is confirmed by the many examples in the Sunna. Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:50 - "The Prophet said, 'A single endeavor of fighting in Allah's Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it." Sahih Bukhari 4:386 - "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."" In Sahih Muslim, Muhammad laid it out in very clear wording, "Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Prophet) recited (this verse of the Qur'an): 'Thou art not over them a warden: 56(1xxxviii.22)." I haven't even begun to make my case based on the many Hadiths that are evidence of it and the very words of Muhammad in the Hadiths as well as commentary by Muslims.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro started off by showing you all the prime example of taqiyyah: my arguments. He proceeds to completely ignore my rebuttals, which I can understand, because the truth cannot be denied. The rest is up to the reader, I base my arguments on the Quran first, the Sunnah (Hadith) second and then any other expert analysis. Pro however, thinks that the expert analysis is the most reliable source. According to Muslim belief the Quran is the uncorrupted word of Allah. Therefore it cannot contain any mistakes. Analysis, usually in the form of tafsir, is done by humans and can contain error. Therefore, the primary source for Islamic teachings is the Quran.


Before I start with rebuttals, I would like to clarify something Pro mentioned, abrogation. This doctrine of abrogation is completely false. The Quran mentions explicitly that it does not contain contradictions and is a perfect book. If something is perfect, how can some verses be abrogated? That would be an imperfection wouldn’t you say? That means that the Quran contradicts itself. Therefore, since abrogation contradicts the Quran, it cannot be a correct Islamic doctrine. Usually there is a reference a verse from al-Baqarah 2:107: “Whatever sign we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know what Allah has the power to do all that He wills?” When looking at the surrounding verses, the passage is about the People of the Book and their scriptures. Then it becomes clear that this abrogation is referring to those (older) scriptures, not the Quran itself. (1)

Pro also mentioned Carlyle’s quote regarding the Quran to say that it is not a perfect book. That people who do not believe in Islam do not agree with this belief is beside the point. We are debating the actions of Muslims. Muslims must act in accordance with the Quran, including the belief that it is a perfect book. That is the point that I’m trying to make.


Pro claims that the Hadith I was referring to (regarding greater and lesser Jihad) is a falsification and not true. This is a lie. It has come to my knowledge after further research that this particular Hadith had a weak chain of narration. This by itself does not mean that the Hadith is not true. The other criteria which are used to test the validity of the hadith are sound. It does not contradict the Quran. It does not contradict historic records and it has no internal contradictions. Besides this Hadith there are many other similar Hadith, which have sound chains of narration and meet all criteria. For example, in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah it is reported that remembrance of Allah is far better than slaying an enemy or being slain in combat. Further they report that a warrior who is covered in blood, is still a degree below those who remember Allah. Muhammad also mentioned in the ‘farewell pilgrimage’: “The Fighter in the Way of Allah is he who makes jihad against himself (jahada nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah.” The hadith I mentioned is therefore in accordance with other sources that have been proven to be sound and authentic. (2)(3)

A source that Pro quoted claims that the hadith is in contradiction with a verse from the Quran (4:96). The verse actually mentions that the ‘mujahideen’ are a rank higher than the people who sit at home and practice their religion. A mujahideen is merely someone who takes part in Jihad, i.e. propagating Islam.

Pro continues to mention that I paraphrased the Quran when referring to verse 25:53. However, multiple translations mention the same thing that I quoted, namely that one should do Jihad (strive), against disbelievers, with the Quran. (4)

The next verses that he mentions are from al-Baqarah 2:191-194. I don’t see how this makes my reference to the verse any less valid. Even the last of these verses, 194, mentions “But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the wrongdoers.” The wrongdoers in this case are those who still fight (physically), cause disturbances and incite violence.

Pro’s second point regarding this verse was a supposed case of abrogation by 9:1. I mentioned the doctrine of abrogation above, but will clarify the apparent contradiction. The verse 9:1 mentions that the past treaties, in which the Meccans had many demands that restricted Muslims, were void. The following verses mention to fight and kill certain people. It also mentions repeatedly that the disbelievers with whom there is another (new) treaty which allows them to live in peace, should be honored. (9:4) It then mentions that the idolaters that seek refuge with the Muslims (without accepting Islam) should be given protection. (9:6). Then it becomes clear in verse 9:12 that those people who break their oaths and fight against Muslims, these are the ones that should be killed. So there is no abrogation or contradiction whatsoever. (5)

There is also a reference to some Hadith quoting Muhammad saying that he would “fight against disbelievers”. This is merely referring to the Jihad which I have mentioned in the previous rounds. It does not have to be a physical fight, but also a spiritual fight (propagating Islam by peaceful means).

The verses which Pro refers to from 22:40-41 are speaking against himself. They clearly mention “Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged.” How can you conclude that Muslims are the aggressors if they defend themselves? The following verses show examples of disbelieving people who were eventually destroyed by God Himself and the disbelievers are warned to not follow in their footsteps, because they might suffer the same fate. There is no mention of human interference.

Pro also mentions a division of the world in two parts: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. He claims that this is mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. This is not true. This division is never mentioned in the Quran nor in the Hadith. (6) He also refers to the ‘Jihad against Israel’ as an example. As I have clearly demonstrated in previous rounds, Jihad is not an aggressive form of Holy War. The hostile stance towards Israel is purely political and has no Islamic basis. Also the conquests that are mentioned (North Africa, Spain, etc) are also politically motivated wars, since they lack any basis in Islam.

Then there is mention of verse 4:75. Pro concludes from these verses that the great reward that is mentioned is “endless sexual and carnal pleasure” and “female sex slaves and loot”. Where do you see this being mentioned? Is this your definition of a ‘great reward’? Furthermore, this is mentioning the defensive war that is permitted in Islam. When such a situation arises, then able men are told to go forth in battle.

4:96 – This verse mentions that people who take part in Jihad are higher in rank than people who sit at home. This is indeed true. As I have mentioned earlier, Jihad includes the propagation of Islam.

9:5 – Pro talks of this as the famous ayt as-saif, the sword verse. Again he ignores the entire context. Just the following verse (9:6) will suffice. It mentions that if any disbeliever seeks refuge with the Muslims, they are obligated to protect him. Furthermore, a few verses further (9:12) there is mention of which people are meant (to kill): those who fight, cause disorder and break their pledge (of non-violence and peace).

Pro also accused Muhammad and his companions to attack caravans during the month of Ramadan (while this is prohibited), but fails to provide any evidence. Based on the principle “innocent until proven guilty” this accusation is therefore considered false.

He concludes by repeating himself, mentioning hadith, some which he has mentioned before already. These hadith are in reference to either the defensive wars that were fought or they are about a spiritual fight by peaceful means.


Yet again, any claims or allegations made by Pro have been proven to be false. Verses are pulled out of context again and again. Even reading the one verse preceding and the one verse following the mentioned verses provides sufficient clarification, but Pro fails to do this.

I’ll provide an analogy to clarify further. For example a father is playing with his child and at one point he says: “AHHH, I will eat you!” If I were acting like Pro, I would immediately go to the police and report this man, because he said he would eat his daughter. It is a fact that the father of this child said it. But the mistake that is being made here is obvious, the context is not mentioned at all. The father said this in a playful way, while playing with his child. There is no intention of actually eating him or her.

Context is very important. I would kindly request Pro to start looking at the context.


  1. 1. (page 9-10)

  2. 2.

  3. 3.

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

  6. 6.



Revisiting the Carlyle Quote

It was irrelevant to whether or not the Qu'ran contains a doctrine of deceit with regards to unbelievers or being under the power of an unbeliever. To that, it speaks nothing. Nevertheless, I responded with my own quote from Carlyle to demonstrate he was harshly critical of the composition of the Qu'ran, but if you wish to make appeals to authority I offer this quote from David Margoliouth saying, "In order to gain his ends he [Muhammad] recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits to the utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. His career as tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder ... He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end"This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy"" And does knowing Arabic mean you understand better? No, of course not, we can translate many languages, even ancient ones, but doesn't it seem odd that you claim to have a religion for all people in the world but then claim it is a language no one can understand? Most Muslims doesn't speak it either.

Qu'ran & Deception

As for the verse (S. 3:54, S. 7:99, S. 8:30, S. 10:21, & S. 13:42), these were just demonstrating the allah himself is a deceiver. 3:54 shows that allah is the best deceiver. 7:99 is another verse about allah's makra (deception) - Afaaminoo makra Allahi fala ya/manu makra Allahi illa alqawmu alkhasiroona. The "nation of losers" is a nice touch for the perfect book. 8:30 says allah schemes and deceives, he's the best of them. 10:21 is another example of allah's trickery and here we find he's faster than his creation at it. 13:42 calls Muhammad's deity the best deceiver and liar (falillahi al-makru). The word makir is always used negatively to describe someone dishonest and this is the attribute given to allah. The crucifixion of Jesus, as it relates to allah being a deceiver is clear, it says he made it appear unto them and that means in essence allah deceived people into believing it or at least this is the claim of the Qu'ran. 8:43-44 reveals you are intentionally lying, because the verse says allah made the Meecan army appear little because he knew the Muslims were weak in their hearts. I pointed to this to show he also deceives Muslims.

2:225 was used to demonstrate Muslims have no need to take account of oaths. You say something bad like committing murder, but this could be just as easy as making an oath to a disbeliever that is false. 3:28, it says nothing about preference, rather it is a total rejection of disbelievers and the only friendship you can have is out of fear. Unbelievers are called the "vilest of creatures" and Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-'Uthaymeen explained, "Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to HATE the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers..." 16:106 permits Muslims to express unbelief with their tongues as long as their heart stays true to Islam. It becomes much clearer when a person understands that Muslims are eternally at war with unbelievers and in nations full of unbelievers they are permitted to use deception hence Muhammad's statement, "War is deceit." In Tabari 8:23, Muhammad said, "Make them abandon each other if you can so that they will leave us; for war is deception." Also, in the Hadith, Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'. - Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267 This is not a play on arabic words, there is no such thing as secular war in Islam, and clearly using deception is bread and butter to Islamic warfare, which is against all unbelievers (S. 9:29) and as Muhammad said, " I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah."

Other Rebuttals

As for the meaning of Al-Fitnah, as related in S. 2:193, it is explicitly referring to shirk and kufr, which is verified in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir - "(...until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam." Again, another deception. The proposterous nonsense about Al-Fitnah in 2:193 being a test is evidence of you just making it up. As for Ka"b bin Ashraf, he was a poet, and he expressed his opinion that Muhammad was a phony prophet and he supported the Quraysh. Your history is all wrong because he was assassinated by Muhammad while Muhammad was at Medina. The claim he plotted to assassinate Muhammad is a lie. Muhammad had him killed for insulting him, which Muslims assure us is an offense punishable by death, and he permitted lying and deception to achieve it in the night. It was murder. Do not forget Al Nadr ibn al-Harith, Al-Harith bin Suwayd al-Ansari, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, Fartana, Quraybah, Huwayrith ibn Nafidh, and many others belong to Muhammad's Dead Poet's Society. Medina wasn't a democracy (roaring with laughter) and Muhammad ordering cold-blooded murders to be carried out is not an example of due process through a judicial institution! He was judge, jury, and his loyal assassins were the executioners. Ibn Ishaq wrote, "Ka"b"s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad"s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet." The dishonesty coming from you is immense. Lastly, the Hadith is clear that a man may lie by presenting false witnesses claiming to be married to a woman and you are again being dishonest, "...and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid."

More Sources

Ibn Kathir - "(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them. Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection."

"Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al- Ma"athoor,"narrates Ibn Abbas", the most renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis, opinion regarding al-Taqiyya in the Qur"anic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....(3:28)"that Ibn Abbas said: "al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been coerced into saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his TRUE faith has not been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will not harm him (at all); (because) al- Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (not the heart)." Note: The two words "tat-taqooh"and "tooqatan,"as mentioned in the Arabic Qur"an, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya."

"It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that: After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?"The Prophet (S) excused him and said: "Say whatever you have to say.""

"It is narrated by al-Ghazzali in his book, "Ihya `Uloom al-Din,"that: Safeguarding of a Muslim"s life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that LYING is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim"s blood is at stake." [1]

Abrogation (Limited Space, Limited Rebuttal)

Abrogation comes from the Qu'ran (S. 2:106, S. 13:39, S. 16:101, S. 17:85-86, & S. 87:6-7), Abrogation is found in the Sunnah many times (Sahih Bukhari 6:60:68, Sahih Bukhari 6:60:53, Sahih Muslim 003:0675, Sahih Muslim 4:1433, etc.), and it is confirmed by many Islamic scholars otherwise you ought to explain why your Qiblah is no longer toward Jerusalem and why you don't make Salat 50 times a day. Muhammad Al-Zurqani states: "Early generations of Muslim scholars (salaf al-ummah) had consensus of opinion over the fact that there occurred abrogation in the Islamic law." It is a unanimous opinion among Islamic scholars.

Debate Round No. 4


Carlyle’s Quote

Pro presented a quote from David Margoliouth, which described Muhammad in a negative way. It must be noted that Margoliouth was a Christian priest, who obviously is biased against Islam. It has been proven that most Christian literature from the Middle Ages and onward was propaganda against Islam. Later writers from the period of Enlightenment, had a positive view of Muhammad as a person and the teachings Islam. These individuals can be considered neutral. Very influential philosophers like Voltaire, Goethe and Victor Hugo wrote of Muhammad as a good person. (1)

Pro points towards the fact that texts can be translated. This is completely true, but when you translate a text, you lose some of its original style and meaning. There are certain verbs, phrases, figures of speech, etc. that are unique to a language and cannot be properly expressed in translation. Therefore, if you can study a text in its original language, in this case Arabic, that gives one a better understanding.

Quran and Deception

I have explained verse by verse what those verses mean in previous rounds. I’ll only respond to certain aspects which you have pointed out. You mention the usage of the word ‘makru’ and that it means deception. I quote from Lane:

“Makru: is praised or dispraised according to the nature of its object [For further explanation, see what follows.]” (2)

When makru is used when referring to the disbelievers who plot against Islam, it has a negative connotation and when it is referring to Allah’s plans, it has a positive connotation. Furthermore, I have already pointed out that planning is not the same as deceiving.

At the crucifixion of Jesus, the deception came not from Allah, as I already explained. The Jews had the means to confirm Jesus’ death (breathing, heartbeat, etc.). However, they failed to do this, because they were too happy celebrating. If Allah had somehow prevented the Jews from being able to confirm Jesus’ death, that would have been deceit from Allah’s part.

When referring to verses 8:43-44 I have already explained that this was the tactic that the Meccans used, but again pro doesn’t seem to have read my complete explanation. They hid parts of their army so they would appear smaller in number and not scare the Muslim army off from the beginning.

Verse 2:225 clearly mentions “that you may abstain from doing good and acting righteously”. But again, you seem to have not read (or selectively read, which Pro seems to do) what I have said.

Pro then mentions verse 3:28 again and seems to have ignored my explanation. Multiple translations convey the same message: Do not take disbelievers as friends OVER believers. Preference should be given to Muslims as friends. (3) Furthermore, it refers to ‘Auliyah’ which is one type of friend (helper/supporter) and the Quran mentions other types of friends with other words elsewhere. There is also no mention of hate, just a warning to be cautious when dealing with disbelievers.

Finally Pro mentions the Hadith which quote Muhammad saying: War is deceit. What a surprise, Pro didn’t read my explanation:

- Deceit refers to war itself (in the original Arabic text). This means that war in itself is deceit, because of the influence it has on people

- Second, even if taken literally, deceit only refers to tactics of war (i.e. surprise attacks, evasive manouvres) not of conduct (lying to someone’s face). Other hadith clearly mention that deceit in conduct is absolutely forbidden (an example: luring an enemy in by acting as if one is surrendering and then proceeding to kill). Conclusion: deceit in conduct (i.e. lying) is still absolutely forbidden.


Pro again proceeds with the definition of Fitnah. I have provided the translation from Lane. Fitnah can mean different things, usually referring to challenge, with the literal meaning being: ‘to burn’. One of the meanings which Lane mentions is oppression. Also many translations state fitnah as oppression or tumult (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir). I am clearly not making this up, with Lane, Pickthall, etc. backing me up in this case. The verse (2:193) further mentions “until religion is for Allah”. When understanding the Arabic term, this means that Islam can be practiced and propagated freely.

Ka’b bin Ashraf

Your history is all wrong because he was assassinated by Muhammad while Muhammad was at Medina.

First, Ka’b was indeed a poet, amongst many other things. He was a political leader, a wealthy and influential man. Second, the source I have provided, has many references to historians, including Hisham, which is considered one of the most accurate sources. You can check these sources again if you wish. (4) So it is your opinion that these historians are all wrong? Be my guest if you want to be ignorant.

These sources clearly mention that Ka’b bin Ashraf was causing unrest. He was rallying up the remaining Quraish (who were living in peace after their army had been defeated and lost Mecca) to fight against Muslims. He was also harassing Muslim women and at one point he planned to poison Muhammad after inviting him to dinner. These are not my words, but are corroborated by historians, including Hisham.

Furthermore, the execution of Ka’b was a complicated matter. Doing so publicly would cause even more unrest and chaos. The welfare of the state was at stake. Therefore, only in this one isolated and extreme situation, Muhammad after much hesitation agreed to this plan.

Also, historic accounts mention that Muhammad was democratically chosen by the tribes of Medina as their leader. He did not always apply Islamic law, but asked the defendants by which law they wanted to be tried. Most defendants were Jewish, and Jewish law has strict punishments, including the death penalty for certain crimes. So many of the Jewish criminals were prosecuted by Jewish law (by their own choice) and were eventually executed. (4)(5)

Marriage by false witnesses

You have mentioned a hadith which talks about a man using two false witnesses to marry a woman against her will. The hadith mentions that the man knows that the witnesses are false. The hadith also mentions that the judge rules the marriage to be legal. The conclusion is that the man can consummate the marriage legally. You again seem to have ignored my explanation completely.

First, the man knows the witnesses are false. Of course he knows they are false, since he wants to marry a certain woman by using lies and deceit! Lying is obviously a sin and since both the husband and the witnesses will get their punishment for this.

Second, the judge rules the marriage as lawful. How can the judge decide otherwise? He is presented with two witnesses who are claiming the marriage took place. The judge cannot look into their hearts and know that they are lying. The judge has no choice here.

Third, since the judge had to rule the marriage as lawful, the society cannot prevent him from consummating the marriage. The society cannot know that the witnesses and the husband are lying. This also means that the society accepts the marriage as valid.

Finally, the final judgment and punishment for this deceit will be given by Allah, since he does know what is going on in the hearts of these people. The hadith only mentions what happens in this world but in the Afterlife justice will be dealt. The deception will still be punished and it is not lawful (by Allah’s laws) to lie and deceive.

Further rebuttals of Taqiyya

Pro quoted the source he linked (from On this page, there are some parts which are quoted from these tafaseer (of Ibn Khatir, al-Suyuti, etc.) and then the author of that page, draws his own conclusions from these quotes. (Pro quotes the entire text as if that is directly from the tafseer, which seems pretty deceptive) The quoted parts from tafseer are mentioning the same thing as I have mentioned earlier:

  1. 1. The punishment from lying will be reserved, for the time being, when it is done under coercion, immediate life-threatening situations, etc.

  2. 2. When migration has taken place to a safer place and when the Muslim is not under threat of persecution and can practice religion freely (such as in the West), he will be forgiven for his earlier sin of lying.

Lying in everyday life to propagate Islam is categorically forbidden, refer to previous rounds for citations.


2:106 – See previous round

13:39 – The verse talks about the power of God to create and destroy (first part) and that the Shariah is based on his attributes (for example Justice).

16:101 – The verse talks about the signs (aya) of Allah, in this case punishments which are averted or delayed (based on surrounding verses, context)

17:85-86 – The chapter is about the Jews and how they are an example of how not to be, since they deviated from their teachings. Similarly it says that at one point in time the Muslims will deviate from Quranic teachings (which are ‘taken away’ by the doing of man).

87:6-7 – The verse mentions that the Quran will not be forgotten. The phrase “as what Allah wills” refers to matters of everyday life (as mentioned in other places of the Quran. (6)

The first Qiblah (Jerusalem) was not ordered in the Quran. The Quranic revelation that the Qiblah should be the Sacred Mosque abrogated the pre-Quranic teaching. (7) The number of Salat is mentioned in the Quran to be 5 times in two verses and corroborated by hadith.(8)


I would like to conclude this debate, by saying I learned a lot from it. Everything that I have said, I have backed it up with references. Pro however, seems to reject these, because ‘he says so’. He also seems to ignore most of my arguments which I have presented and consistently cherry picks and selectively picks out quotes and verses, ignoring the entire context.

Therefore I believe I have refuted the allegations made by Pro and proven that Islam in fact does not promote deception and does not promote and endless war against disbelievers.



DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
You keep evading the glaring irony that Ahmadis like yourself use dissimulate about Islam in the West but you are unwilling to face the truth that your works are banned in Islamic countries and you face death and imprisonment by the so-called religion of peace or as the initiated in the West like to say, religion of pieces. You aren't even considered a sect within Islam. As for the protestant/catholic divide, that would be more comparable to the Sunni/Shi'ite divide. Unfortunately for your case, Catholics and protestants are denouncing one another as heretics or demolishing each other's churches and engaged in warfare and violence against one another. You must be blind if you don't follow and keep up with current events but then again Muslims are actively exhorted to live a 7th century lifestyle in imitation of Muhammad. What is happening to Ahmadis is precisely the point of the major concerns and problems people have with the Islamic ideology. Who knows really considering the sahih hadiths record Muhammad claiming Satan enters the noses of Muslims while they sleep at night and I suppose he could cause all sorts of mischief up in there. I'd really be concerned when the prophet of my religion informs me Satan urinates in my ears causing me to miss the call to morning prayer.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
In fact, far from a failure to read what you argue in debate, I have responded repeatedly to your claims and your assertions while noting your abandonment of multiple points and on the others you simply have a bad habit of repeating yourself. We're just now to a point where you finally concede there is no Greater Jihad or Lesser Jihad. By the way, the sahih hadiths only contradict it and your contention. Your argument further falls apart on an examniation of the attacks and raids launched by Muhammad and his followers or the more damning history of hundreds of battles and relentless, bloody conquests to which there is absolutely no claim of any type of self-defense on the part of ghazis. Your sense of justice under the law is severely impaired if you believe that you can lay down law through a tradition that says you can falsely claim a wife by using two false witnesses and the judge is to find this lawful. It is frivolous in the extreme and I wonder what type of education in "law" you are supposed to be under study. The case of Ka'b bin Ashraf, again and again, from the haidth, is clearly a case of him asking his followers to murder this man, permitting lying to achieve it, and he was lured out in night under the guise of friendship and stabbed to death. This is precisely what criminal organization like the mafia call a "hit." There was nothing exceptional and I could have cited many other individuals and poets the prophet of Islam had dispatched. Also, what you have in 7th century Arabia is tribalism and he was what we would refer to as a warlord, pure and simple. Reading this nonsense reminds me of why your prophet made daw'ha for 13 years and had to resort to violence, theft, and murder starting out as a caravan raider, warlord, and slaver to propagate his "religion." I would also suggest that the opiate, in this case, seems to be an arrogant false religion.
Posted by zaheer12a 2 years ago
Regarding Ahmadis, you state a few events that took place and then you say this: "Also, please quit trying to make a false comparison via Catholics and Lutherans. You aren't even considered a sect of Islam within Islam."

I'm not sure if you know anything of history besides what your (seemingly biased) sources tell you.

Protestants were declared heretics (non-Christian) by the Roman Catholic Church.
Protestants were prosecuted.
People were stimulated to kill protestants (or indirectly kill them by reporting them)
Protestant literature was banned.

No comparison? You must be blind if you cannot see the comparison.

Furthermore, history shows that many truly guided followers of certain beliefs were prosecuted a long time and yet still kept growing. This happened with the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. So this happening to Ahmadis is no surprise.
Posted by zaheer12a 2 years ago
You don't seem to have read 90% of what I argued in the debate (or are just completely ignoring it). Even if you say that the Hadith I mentioned is a completely fabrication, you cannot do the same with the other evidence I have provided. That is basically saying the same thing and IS 'sahih'.

The case of the marriage being considered lawful (when two false witnesses are used) then.... If in a murder case, someone brings false witnesses and nobody can prove these to be false (except the people involved in the set-up), what is the judge supposed to do? The verdict will be guilty. What I have argued is exactly the same thing. I am not justifying it, I'm just stating that there is nothing any human being can do with limited knowledge. The final verdict will come from God and will be just, because he knows all the facts.

I have provided a source which describes the whole Ka'b bin Ashraf event. This source is cross-referenced and uses well known historians as its source. I don't know how you can possibly think all of these historians are wrong. (Mass delusion? Perhaps they were all smoking opiates together...)

And I did concede that in this particular case there were exceptional circumstances and in this one case Muhammad permitted the use of questionable means. (reread the debate ;)

Then we have the issue of democracy in Arabia.... Muhammad was appointed as a leader by the tribes of Medina, because when he arrived, he proved to be a neutral and just judge (by solving one of their disputes). There are many historic accounts of these events. Again, perhaps all of them were smoking opiates or something :')

There is a difference between there being no evidence and you ignoring the evidence. In this case it's the latter. The truth is in front of you, but you choose to 'bury' it, the true literal meaning of 'kufr' (to bury). Funny little coincidence.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
I just enjoy the irony of Ahmadis in the West carrying water Islam all the while they are here partly due to the outright hostility and persecution they face in Islamic countries. The II Amendment (Second Amendment) to the Constitution of Pakistan became a part of the Constitution of Pakistan on September 7, 1974. It declared Ahmadis not to be Muslim. So while you deceptively dissimulate about Islam in the West, we know full well hundreds of Ahmadis were killed in the 1953 Lahore riots, the repeat in 1974 that culimnated in the largest single killing of Ahmadis in Pakistan, and attacks continue to this day in the country like the notable 2010 attacks on two Ahmadi mosques. In Bangladesh, your publications have been banned since 2004. Moulana Moahmud Hossain Mumtazi led violent marches in that country to have Ahmadis declared infidels. Even in the U.K., the Ummah Channel was broadcasting programs whereby Muslim leaders and callers stated clearly that Ahmadis should be killed. It wasn't uncommon to find Muslim handing out leaflets in London asking readers to kill Ahmadis. You are referred to by slurs like Qadiyani. I have already mentioned that the World Muslim League conference held in Mecca declared Ahmadis to be "a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam." So imagine the hypocrisy of Ahmadis like yourself propagating this ideology when Muslims in the West want you dead just as much as Muslims in the Islamic countries all the while you keep aggressively pushing these fables about Islam. Also, please quit trying to make a false comparison via Catholics and Lutherans. You aren't even considered a sect of Islam within Islam.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
I am really too the point of drawing the conclusion that you are intellectually dishonest considering that even my staunchest opponents would concede that I compulsively labor to address every single point raised. My main argument is about Jihad warfare and the command of Muslims to fight non-Muslims until the entire world submits to Islam. Taqiyya is just the propaganda aspect of this war because Muslims, especially in the West, are in the Meecan period and couldn't hope to achieve this goal. Your basic response was a Hadith considered to be a fabrication that contradicted the Qu'ran and the numerous Sahih hadiths. I pointed this out and made my references to which you abandoned further argument. I read your final arguments and you never prevailed against that contention. Furthermore, you're absolutely right about the debate being over and you failed to sustain your case. When you deny abrogation exists, you are going against the Qu'ranic verses and hadiths and the consensus within Islam that only debates the degree to which it does exist. Speaking of marriage being lawful by false claims and witnesses, your excuses for this practice are outrageous and I was astonished that you justify a teaching that sanctions marriage through lying. Then we continually see your misconstructions in the case of Ka"b bin Ashraf, who was only one of many I could have cited, and we could see the problem early on when you falsely placed this at the time Muhammad held Meeca. I can cite the account of Muhammad asking his followers to murder this man, he explicitly condoned lying to achieve this goal, and his followers lured this man out at night and stabbed him to death. Of course you whitewash the whole affair and fuurther insult the intelligence of every reader by make absurd claims of democracy in Arabia, which is pure fantasy, and tried to make frivolous claims that this was a matter of judicial function when in reality this was clearly no different than a mafia hit. I could continue
Posted by zaheer12a 2 years ago
As to me using sources from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, that is because I am an Ahmadi Muslim myself. Unlike, some of the sources most opponents of the Islam use, the literature from is in most cases cross-referenced and used many reliable sources. That is also why I prefer this literature.

Regarding the allegations of heresy, well see it like the Roman Catholic church vs Lutheran/Calvinistic/etc. churches. Same thing, different religion. According to Ahmadiyyat, nobody can call someone else a kafir, that is up to God to decide. He knows who the believers, disbelievers and hypocrites are, not us. We can't see in people's minds.
Posted by zaheer12a 2 years ago
David, I really think you should learn to look at a text critically. You skip so much of what I wrote and also, what other sources write.

I argued at some place during the debate (not sure where, since it's been a few days) that the argument of Taqiyya was your main argument. You are attacking the messenger. If I don't deal with that argument properly, it doesn't even matter what I say about other things, because I'd been proven to be a deceiver (if your argument of Taqiyya would be true) So, I did not abandon the contention about Jihad. I provided my main argument about Jihad in the opening statement. I did reply to any comment you made about it, since that is the point of rebuttals.

"which I think is validated by my opponents responses by using the rejected Hadith considered a fabrication"

Again, reading problem on your part. You didn't read my arguments in the final round (clearly). I conceded that the reliability of the Hadith was not great, but then I came with Hadith which are authentic and corroborate the Hadith that I have mentioned.

Also, I do not wish to respond to your comment about Jihad, since the debate is over. I understand that you couldn't come with a proper response due to your work, but regardless. Also from the beginning you have proven to be a bad listener (actually, reader would be a better word) and debating you does not seem to have any use. Nevertheless, I did finish the debate we had, and I would like to debate others in the future about these topics (related to Islam).

I would strongly advise you to start reading properly. Judging by your responses before, during and after the debate, you do not read anything properly. You cherry pick sentences and reply to those. That is why I had to repeat myself multiple times and even then you fail to see it. It would have been a much more interesting debate if you would have properly read your opponent's arguments.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
Zaheer, I'm still curious as to why you frequently cited a web site of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community?
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
Unfortunately working 12 hour days meant I was unable to meet my fifth round deadline and I apologize to anyone following the debate. I think it is obvious my opponent readily abandoned the main contention about Jihad and fighting unbelievers as a central doctrine of the Islamic ideology preferring to only argue about Taqiyaa, the doctrine of deception, which I think is validated by my opponents responses by using the rejected Hadith considered a fabrication regarding "Greater" and "Lesser" Jihad.

I really wanted to debate the issue of Jihad in early Islamic history given Muhammad's battles and raids, which were almost never defensive and the many Islamic conquests grabbing a combined land mass of 5 million square miles. I posed this question in response to deceptive video on Jihad that slyly mentioned the Crusades: "Why does your video ignore the Rashidun conquests; the conquest of Syria in 637, the conquest of Armenia in 639, the conquest of Egypt in 639, the conquest of North Africa in 652, and the conquest of Cyprus in 654? Why does your video ignore the Umayyads and their conquests; conquest of North Africa in 665, first Arab siege of Constantinople in 674"678, the second Arab siege of Constantinople in 717"718, the Conquest of Hispania in 711"718, and the conquest of Georgia in 736? How about the conquest of Crete in 820 or the conquest of southern Italy in 827? How about the conquests of Persia and Mesopotamia from 633"651, the conquest of Transoxiana from 662"751, the conquest of Sindh from 664"712, the conquest of Septimania from 719"720, or attempts to Conquer the Caucasus from 711"750? Also, what about the Islamic conquests of of Nubia from 700"1606, incursions into southern Italy from 831"902, or the conquest of Anatolia from 1060"1360?"

To claim there was no abrogation in the Qu'ran was what I considered dishonest given that in Islam, Naskh, is a well established principle and the only disagreement is to what degree.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to have won on the jihad points, as I didn't find Con's responses credible--particularly with the hadith that may have been fabricated. Even Pro acknowledges it has problems of authenticity. Pro wants us to accept it anyway, but I didn't find that compelling. As to the lying, even Con acknowledged at least SOME lying being allowed. As a bare minimum, squeaker win, Pro carries the day in my opinion, despite the forfeit which lost him conduct. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.