Islam promotes segregation, violence, and unequal treatment for women.
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept the challenge.
I have two rules:
1. Source must be cited for every quote from Quran and Hadith. (It would be nice two give direct link, I would suggest http://alim.org... )
2. For a hadith it must be cited whether it is sahih or not. (It can be checked by hadith books easily.)
First, I will define segregation since segregation is a fairly general term that can often happen in instances that have little to no mal intent.
Segregation: “The action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.”
The next section will outline, in order, the factors that I have asserted Islam promotes. I will then dissect the verses and explain my interpretation of what they mean (even though many speak for themselves).
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors of each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (Surah 5, verse 51).
-The focus of this verse is “us” and “them”. In some of the simplest terms, the meaning behind this verse explicitly states that “we” do not associate with “them”. Furthermore, Muhammad explains that Allah does not guide anyone who He believes to be unjust. This is used to reinforce the standard to which all Muslims are to live up to.
“And the Jews say: “Uzair is the son of Allah“; and the Christians say: “Messiah is the son of Allah.” that is what they say with their mouths; following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] May God destroy them! How perverted are their minds!" (Surah 9, verse 30)
-Before I explore the obvious attributes of segregation, Muhammad has made a strange profession. Muhammad has said that the truth was denied prior to his own understanding of the truth. He has therefore deemed the truth to have been available even prior to him having received revelations from the angel Gabriel. It is a blatant contradiction of the affirmations that Muhammad has made. Now, Muhammad has implemented condemnation to Christian and Jewish beliefs as a means for denying integration. The implications are simple: Lack of diverse religious acceptance maintains the purity that Muhammad believes to be essential for supporting his own agenda.
“Surely Allah has laid a curse on the unbelievers and has prepared for them a blazing fire.” (Surah 33, verse 64).
-This is a further reinforcement to maintain the segregation directives that Muhammad redundantly orders to his followers. Apparently, the threat of the divine is much more prevalent than the “seemingly” constant threat that the unbelievers pose to the believers. It would seem silly to have to convince an individual(s) that a threat exists more than once if it is indeed prevalent.
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).” (Surah 9, verse 123).
-Taking it one step further, the threat is not only eminent, but it is happening whether or not there are tell tale signs of its existence. This results in disregarding logic as a fundamental principle of our intrinsic moral order. Muhammad has increased the fear, just as every great cult leader has done when he/she feels that the stimulation of the congregation must constantly be exalted. The result is a direct order to fight with the intention of causing physical or emotional harm to a “perceived” threat.
“Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers.” (Surah 4, verse 89)
-What is most shocking (aside from the vengeful acts of violence), in which the Quran claims as truth, is the ridiculousness of the threat at large. The threat is not sickness, war, or genocide; it is a threat of disbelief. Disbelief has little to no empirical data supporting a threat to the majority and is almost uniquely individualistic. An individual disbelief does not generally result in practical threats of sickness, war, or genocide, as they pertain to modern times. Yet, this disbelief is still at the heart of the “perceived threat” that was highlighted 1500 years ago during nomadic civil unrest. We see it in the Middle East and the overwhelming violence that surges over this outdated (and unrelated) fear of disbelief. The real threat is the punishment from God for not taking the threat of disbelief seriously.
Unequal Treatment Women
“Let two witnesses from among you bear witness to all such documents, if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women of your choice should bear witness, so that if one of the women forgets anything the other may remind her.” (Surah 2, verse 282).
-Muhammad is professing that God only allows a women’s testimony to be half as credible to that of a man’s. This would be consistent with the preceding verse that blatantly states that men are superior to women.
“0 YOU who have attained to faith! Do not attempt to pray while you are in a state of drunkenness, [but wait] until you know what you are saying; nor yet [while you are] in a state requiring total ablution, until you have bathed - except if you are traveling [and are unable to do so]. But if you are ill, or are traveling, or have just satisfied a want of nature, or have cohabited with a woman, and can find no water - then take resort to pure dust, passing [therewith] lightly over your face and your hands. Behold, God is indeed an absolver of sins, much-forgiving.” (Surah 4, verse 43).
-The implication in this verse illustrates that women are innately dirty and possess an impurity that, if encountered, one cannot even pray to God. Is it ironic that, during prayer, God forbids hands that have touched a woman pointed in His direction. Those filthy hands that have tarnished a man’s ability to pray are the same hands that God requires women to use during prayer. God must be consistent for his “truths” to resonate with any one who utilizes due diligence when he/she encounters professions of “truth”.
“Your wives are your tilth; go, then, unto your tilth as you may desire, but first provide something for your souls, and remain conscious of God, and know that you are destined to meet Him. And give glad tidings unto those who believe.” (Surah 2, verse 223)
-What is strange about this verse is not the obvious encouragement for men to sleep with their wives whenever they please, it is how Muhammad has taken chauvinistic piety and attempted to downplay the absurdity of his statement. Muhammad has clearly stated that a man is able to take his wife to bed whenever he so pleases, he then attempts to dilute the effect by reinforcing a collection of ambiguous directives
Thank you for your argument. My first point is on the how text should be interpreted. It should be inter-textual and contextual. Quran is different from other scripture in many ways, and one of them is it was not revealed at once. It was revealed in different times and places for specific events and issues. So, when we interpret things we should also keep in mind the context of verse(s).
It should not be a problem for anyone, hence any ideology and religion is segregates another, whether it is liberalism, socialism, Christianity or Islam. Instead debating segregation, one should debate the basis of it.
5.51 - You should check the meaning of the words. It is not talking about the personal friends. The word used here is "awliya" and it can mean protectors, sponsors, guardians. "Awliya" is the plural of "wali", and this word is used for Allah in Quran 2.257 - "Allah is the Protector (wali) of those who believe. " If Allah is our Wali, then there's no other wali, but Him. The word for friend in Arabic is different. Google it. And also if you read 60.8-9 you will know that Muslims must be respectful, just to, and have relationship with anyone who is not declared war to Muslims.
Guidance and 9.30 - It has nothing to do with topic, I mean if God exists and He is the Creator of all things, then He has every right to do everything He wills with His creation. And anyone who doesn't follow the law of God, is denier of truth. This can be discussed after whether existence or non-existence of God is assessed.
33.64 - It's a metaphysical claim, about the Hell, and it has nothing to do with daily life of Muslims. Same rule from above.
9.123 - Chapter 9 was revealed in the 9th year, and it is a marching order against enemies, the Byzantines, who killed the ambassador of Muslims. What were you expecting, should Muslims send flowers and cake to everyone who kills their ambassador? Study the context first, then make claim.
4.89 - It's about the people who is in war with Muslims, and how do I know that, because next verse begins with "Except", basically except who don't fight you, offer peace to you, or seek refuge with you. Please quote verses in their proper context.
Threat of disbelief - You didn't cite any verse for it. It is your subjective opinion, so I ignore it.
2.282 - To such documents, which documents is verse talking about? Do you know how long 2.282 is, and you cited just little portion of it. I will answer it after you citing whole verse in its proper context.
4.43 - Same law is compulsory for women also, you just cited where it says only for men. Both man and woman must take bath after sexual intercourse before praying. Study the rules for prayer (salah) first.
2.223 - It just says you can have sexual intercourse with your wife, but prepare something for your souls, first. Don't you have sex with your wife? And what's tilth, it is where you plant seed, for what, to obtain produce. It is an allegory, basically means the purpose of marital relationship is reproduction, not just pleasures. And, it doesn't say man can have sex with his wife whenever he wants. There are rules of sexual intercourse in Islam, too. Study them first.
In Islam women have rights to vote, to be political leaders, to inheritance and etc.
And on issue of segregation, through out the history, there was Christian, Jew, Atheist ministers and prime ministers in Muslim countries. And this begs the question, Were Muslims wrong, or are you just ignorant?
Thank you for reading.....
I would first like to address the closing statement in which Con has made. To beg a question that ends with an inquiry of my possible ignorance to historical records pertaining to the religious diversity of leaders in Muslim countries is irrelevant. I am not going to sit here and debate with you who is right and who is wrong under these historical pretexts. My focus is the promotion of the three factors at large during the inception and inevitable reception of Islamic ideology. Or, to rephrase, I am more concerned about the foundational core of Islam's proscriptions and prescriptions. I would have hoped you could avoid deviating from my burden of proof if your only second round position is to rebuttal. Adding an inference to ignorance is a juxtaposition for ambiguity, not for probable cause. I have read the Qur'an front to back and taken courses on Islam, so please do not insult my intelligence with your attempt to discredit any knowledge you THINK I do not have or have not diligently attempted to acquire.
Here, I will clearly focus on a rebuttal for Con's second round response and try to make sense of any white noise that has seemingly hindered the crux of my argument.
Preface: Context is a very important component for reading any religious writing, yet understanding the context in the Qur'an does not change the many literal interpretations and inevitable implementation. It is true that relevance of contextual time periods can change our understanding as to why components do not seem relevant today. Keeping this in mind, is the irrelevance derived from contextual misinterpretation widely adhered to in modern times? Or, do these misinterpretations have a stronger influence than the "correct" interpretations. Lastly, if we are to examine the effect of the introductory primer in the Qur'an , the Qur'an does not preface with, "I will be speaking in parables and allegory, and one should interpret it as such." The Qur'an asserts this book is to not be doubted. The first few pages then pump out rule after rule for how to live your life, while reinforcing the fear of divine punishment. How would any reasonable individual think to approach the Qur'an, in its entirety, having been indoctrinated in this fashion?
*The paraphrased inferences I have made are referring to the first few pages of chapter 1 of the Qur'an, titled "The Cow". Dawood, N.J., "The Koran". Penguin Classics. England, 1999.
-Itemized rebuttals in consecutive order-
Segregation: Con has attempted to display my inattentiveness to the basis for segregation as if that is a rationale for the practice. Now, if I may, say that the potential interpretive impact the Qur'an may have is ideologically incompatible as a basis for comparison of these randomly drawn samples of groups. If you are concerned about the basis for segregation, then please explain why Islam is justified, comparably, to any given group who segregates.
5.51: Are you saying that your recommended translation website, the one you outlined in your rules for accepting this debate, is not a reliable Arabic to English source of translation? I do not speak Arabic and did not read the word "Awliya" since the verses in their entirety were translated to English for me. Hence the reason for having, what you asserted to be, a reputable website to bridge this divide. Please show me in the rules where you said I should first utilize "X" as an expert resource and then utilize "Y" to refute/modify the results from "X".
Now, pretending that the above said did not occur, I will address your point. The element of segregation remains, regardless of the "Awliya" misunderstanding. You explain that Allah is the protector and there's no other protector, but Him. Yet, why is it that Muhammad singles out only the Jews and Christians? He could simply state that He is the only protector, while eliminating the blatant segregation of two singled out religious groups. What I find almost comical that any Muslim I have ever spoken with says that Muhammad professes respect and relationships with those who have not declared war, yet the Qur'an's rhetoric is driven by fear and horrible punishments among the unbelievers (Jews/Christians). This does not overshadow the negative statements made towards "unbelievers" and those alike, it only shows that Muhammad contradicts himself in a consistent manner.
Guidance and 9.30: You are right on one thing, "IF God exists." IF God does exist, then the absurd and horrible punishments He creates for the "unbelievers" are even less rational given the fact that God displays characteristics of a sociopath and narcissism. Either way, the verse in question does relate to segregation because this type of propaganda only further reinforces a fear of integration with the "unbelievers". If I were to take these professions of truth as sacrament, then I too would have a conditioned fear and potentiality for non association.
33.64: Claiming that Allah will cast the unbelievers into a blazing fire (metaphysical or not, it still refers to a place of wicked punishment) would weaken the reader's ability to relate to the unbelievers, hinder relative religious understanding, and further maintain the division between divine reasoning. This verse has everything to do with reinforcing a constant fear of integration with the "unbelievers". Same rule from above.
9.123: Incorporating humor as a mediocre attempt to down play my understanding of the historical context is not at all a damming piece of evidence (also, please refer to my preface on contextual relevance). I will tell you what I was expecting from a book that has been used as a fundamental resource for problem solving; divine guidance that is timeless and can be understood as such. The timelessness and concrete validity of religious text is the reason religions stay afloat for centuries. The crux of your argument about the the Byzantines is still controversial among scholars as to whether or not it even took place. I would never cite something that does not have major scholarly approval. You forgot to add that after the "battle", Muhammad's followers believed there to be nobody left to fight and wanted to sell their weapons. Muhammad wouldn't allow this and believed that there will always be a need to fight. Now, that is timeless and contextually modern.
4.89: War is the fuel keeping the Qu'ran's fire from going out. The references to battle and war make up such a large portion of the book that ignoring them as contextually irrelevant deems a large portion of the Qur'an irrelevant. Knowing historically that Muslims were constantly at battle and engaging in conflict does not change the meaning no matter how you spin it. These conflicts were what Muhammad used as a resource for implementing his own militaristic strategy. The fact remains that Muhammad did not speak of battles from personal experience, he gives a divine and objective list of directions for engaging, attacking, and killing the opposition. That is not a story, it is a reference for Muhammad's rules of engagement.
2.82: I do not have the character length necessary in order to fill half of my rebuttal with this verse in its entirety. I actually had to omit much of my argument due to character constraints. I am going to take that as an aversion to refute my claim.
4.43: The difference here is that the Qur'an details this verse specifically to men, disregarding that the man and woman both cohabited. Thus, this is blatant special circumstance that does not apply to women, even though they are involved.
2.223: If this verse was simply saying "the purpose of sexual intercourse is to procreate", then it would have said that. It says that men can go to their tilth as they desire (implying that male discretion supersedes that of their wife), not that sexual intercourse is for procreation, or husbands and wives can have sex as they please. I cannot fit anything else here.
I appreciate how you want to impose your interpretation on text, but there are rules of interpretation and this scope of interpretation is closed, and someone (like you) cannot come and invent new method.
Any verse(s) of Quran must be interpreted (first) in the light of other verses and (second) in the light of hadith and sunnah.
Segregation - Again your attempt to justify your argument on segregation is fallacious. Up till to pre-WW1 years, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and members of local African religious groups lived together with Muslims, and they all had freedom of religion, their own court of law. And if you study the history you will find non-Muslims in the high ranks of politicians in Muslim countries. My point is either all Muslims throughout the history were wrong, or your interpretation is wrong. And oldest churches and monesteries are in Muslim countries.
"Awliya" issue, there are tons of commentaries on Quran, at least read one of them.
Punishment - I hope you don't disagree with the concept of punishment (example, should rapist be punished?). And your argument here is appeal to emotion. And hell is paradise for masochist. :)
9.123 - "The crux of your argument about the the Byzantines is still controversial among scholars as to whether or not it even took place. I would never cite something that does not have major scholarly approval. You forgot to add that after the "battle", Muhammad's followers believed there to be nobody left to fight and wanted to sell their weapons. Muhammad wouldn't allow this and believed that there will always be a need to fight." Please cite sources, and produce your evidence for these claims. Saying Earth is square is not proof for Earth being square.
"War is the fuel keeping the Quran's fire from going out" - OK, there are 6236 verses in Quran, and Hell mentioned 77 times (same number with Paradise), there is no mention of word "sword", and when you ask for violent verses, they bring up 5 to 10 verses (and always same verses). Actually this proves that you haven't read Quran. (Bring up any word and I will count it for you)
Woman - If you read the Quran, you will know that, there are some verses only men mentioned, and some verses only women mentioned, and some verses both mentioned. Is it unequal treatment. I say Quran is unjust to men more than it is unjust to woman (just for sake of argument), because it says, woman can spend her money as she wants, but man first have to spend it on his family and household. So, let's cry out for men rights.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.