The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Islam the master of religions and the most complete

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 42548
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




I welcome anyone who want to debate this, and this a serious debate.

Islam the master of religions and the most complete because:

1- The Qur'an It has never been re-written, it still the words of god till this day
2- All of the knowledge in The Qur'an has been proven by science(1), and prophecy's (not all of them yet).
3- Most of Modern technology's was discovered by Muslims.(2)


(1): , ,


My side of this argument is not, by any means, an argument against the religion of Islam. I myself have Muslim friends who are quite wonderful and I think there some valuable lessons from the Qur'an. However, when you say it is the master of religions, what criteria are you basing this conclusion off of? Theology, customs, scripture, etc?

Personally, I can see where one person would think Islam is very sexist. It upholds the Christian Old Testament view of things where women are subservient to men. I personally know plenty of women who could do anything that a man can do, if not better. In some cultures, women are considered to be more dominant and men subservient. Physique as little to nothing to do with it.

Also, how do we know it is the "master of religions" if one has not visited any sort of afterlife to find that out for themselves. The way I see it, organized religion is theologically organized one-sided theories, although many religions and spiritual paths are gray-area oriented, meaning there are things and phenomenon that could be either. Religion is the theological interpretation of what is not known or what is believed, but not scientifically validated to be true.
Debate Round No. 1


I am basing this of the completion of it, Christianity and Jew, are good religions, but they are not whole and complete a lot of mistakes can be found, Islam is complete and whole.

Science has proven that Female are more sensitive and weaker then men(1), but of course that's the origins, there are females who are strong but its not their origins, they either go to a gym or something like that, and come on, do you like a muscle women? And Muslim women are one of the best treated women in the world, don't believe me? show me a place where Muslim women said they are getting treated badly (other then Iran and badly cause of religion not cause of people), and another thing, Bible has way more restrictions on women then Qur'an and even Torah.

Just like i said, I am basing this on complete of Islam and wholeness.

(1): , ,


What is your definition of "whole" and "complete"?

Also, "he Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." How can a religion that says this be "whole" and "complete" if by those words you mean spiritual wholeness? I am not a Christian, but in the Old Testament, it speaks of happenings such as this, but in the New Testament, when Jesus came, he appeased the law of God and made him into a loving God instead of a wrathful God. The Quran, however, seems to be constant about killing infidels throughout. And Muslim women only seem to be respected if they obey and remain subservient to their men. Also, this is a typical scientific finding, but some men are born biologically prone to physical weakness, and some women are born the opposite. What is typical is not constant, even biologically.

"The Burka and Hijab are symbols of oppression. I believe the women don't have the same rights as men in their religion and are essentially subjugated concubines. Also because they don't believe in freedom or equality, the Burka, Hijab etc being medieval totalitarian symbol of oppression and a dehumanising form of slavery. It is also something that is anti-democratic, splits society and does nothing to promote integration or harmony between different people. The Burka is derogatory to Women. It is not an expression of freedom and being free to wear what you want, it is a symbol of the oppression of women worldwide, and the treatment of women in the Muslim world by extremists, as concubines and property.

It is a very anti-social, dark and sinister item to wear and I can"t think for the life of me why anyone would want to unless they had someone forcing them to, they had been brainwashed, or they simply didn"t like or want to be a part of this country, in which case you would need to ask why they were here in the first place?"

Seems legit.
Debate Round No. 2


As in it has no mistakes, everything in it is true, if a one is to follow it his life would be perfect, everything is just 'perfect' in it.

Oh back to the classic chopping heads, 1) There is not a single verse, not a single, which says go and kill them like that, the verse that says this is said defending only, "If they take your land and get your women and kill your men you must fight them and wait for them in every corner..." 2) whats up with that fingers thing too? never heard of it. 3) The Jihad call dosent have to be obeyed, there are rules, if the family has only a one male then he must not go to Jihad, if Father and Mother don't agree on their son going to Jihad then he can't go, other things too.. so please have some real sources before saying anything.

Islam was never said to be that complete freedom and democracy, Islam brings Justice and Equality and most important, Guideness and Law to a person life, if you want freedom just become a atheist, Islam brings Law which of to be followed well bring good life to the person, now remind me again of the rape rate in Islam countries and in the west? or remind me of pedophile rate? Hijab is anti democratic? haha so is rape, Hijab make a female respected and not a sex machine, make it a human being, to be respected and treated good, not looking at them 24/7. And by the way, source for that Quote?

Fun Fact: The word sword was mentioned 0 times in Qur'an, While in Bible its mention over 720 times.


But why does your faith have to be better than anyone else's faith? Who says you need to have religion or faith to have morality, men or women? Who says women are more prone to being less respected and regarded as less of human beings? Why cannot one simply exist? As far as the sword being mentioned in the Bible, part of that depends on interpretation. Much of the Bible is taking literally, when most of it is metaphorical. For instance, the stories in the Bible and the Torah (the Old Testament) and the Quran take place within a similar chronological point in time. These are all part of Judeo-Christian culture, which is primarily male-dominated. In the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, it states that "a man shall not lie with another man as he does a women. It is an abomination" is not referring to homosexuality per se, but it is referring to the fear that the men in power had, that if a man had sex with another man, that would make another man at the same level as a women, which is subservience. The total point of fear is that they did not understand that homosexuality is a part of nature. It exists in 490 species, including our own and aside from us, fruit flies have many homosexual and even bisexual specimens. If men in Judeo-Christian culture began regarding other men in a romantic way and thereby bringing the other man down to the level of a women, it would undermine the power of the men and would make them look less "dominant". From a medical perspective, it was to prevent diseases back then, but we all know anyone of any sexuality can get any sexually transmitted disease.

What is the point of a Jihad existing? What is a positive purpose of it? Please elaborate on Jihad bil Saif. Why bother being sent out on a borderline crusade to force those to believe in an invisible being which even you yourself cannot prove inevitably exists? And yet, you say Islam is the highest of all religions. Well what about Buddhism? You don't see them doing any Jihad of any sorts. They work to help, not to persecute. The idea of God is the source of many conflicts. Buddhists do not typically believe in a God. They say that nature is nature and there is no answer and how we got here is not important. Therefore there is no need to fight.

Now, referring back to the example of homosexuality:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

Now is this literal or metaphorical? How do you take it?
Debate Round No. 3


I never said my faith is better then anyone, and there are people with no religon that are good and kind people, i never said not, but how many? and they take many time to probably get it, Islam like i said just puts laws which make the human not behave like animals. And i dont want to talk about gays cause that well lead us into other subject, i am more then welcome to debate gays any time later in another debate.

Jihad exist to protect Islam from A) getting missed up like Christianity and Jew did, B) Its enemy's, and for the "Why bother being sent out on a borderline crusade to force those to believe in an invisible being which even you yourself cannot prove inevitably exists?" tell me, do you see anyone fighting in non-muslim countries to bring Islam to it? no? can you bring me any verse that says so? no? like i said Jihad to protect not to invade.

This verse is literal, not all of them are through.


But why is it that I have seen videos of Muslim extremists making children behead kneeling men for petty crimes such as minor theft? Yes, I have seen videos and it's repulsive. The kid must have not been more than ten years old. Of course, I do not think all Muslims would do that. But because the Quran specifically says "2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

Also,Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)". I am sorry, but I am having trouble seeing the ultimate peace in the very end of Islamic theology.

According to this site:, there are at least 109 verses in the Quran " that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule." So, if I was a Christian or a Jew, would you feel obligated to cause harm to me? Because according to the Quran, I'm an infidel. In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned how the Bible mentioned "the sword" 720 times, but the word "sword" and things such as "armor of God" are metaphors for protecting your spirit against demons and Satan. But as far as killing other people goes who are not believers, as I mentioned before, that is in the Old Testament when God was a wrathful God, but because of Christ's sacrifice (according to the Bible), God found the ability to love his creation, humans, again. But the Quran never seems to cease talking about killing infidels. Sure, it may not change, but is that such a good thing in the end? Correct me, please, if you must.

Yes, there actually is. Just look at England and the incidents they have had there not too long ago such as the July 7th, 2005 bombing of London by Muslim extremists? And how about the Muslim brotherhood wiping out every last Christian in Egypt and doing to them what the Nazis did to the Jews in WWII, marking their homes with crosses instead of the Star of David and crucifying them in their homes? So to answer your question, yes I do.

You say it is literal, but is it literal to all Muslims? Can you account for all of them? Isn't all religious scripture subjective, at least to an extent?

Seeing as how this is the last reply I can make, I thank you for debating with me. I am glad that we can be civil. It's silly to turn a debate into anything else, especially seeing as how we are on a debating site!

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wateva232 2 years ago
Could you repost this debate and challenge me to it? I really want to debate it with you
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
gatermouth200, can you please explain why Team Con was more convincing on everything?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: I am deist and I also think that islam is more logical than other religions but in this debate thelord444 didnot reflect it well, his effect on readers is weak I think. that is why who had better conduct vote went to CON, CON had better conduct, he asked the definition of whole/complete which wasnt explained by PRO, in fact pro needs to do it before CON because he started the debate. spelling and grammar of CON was better than PRO's and I gavbe that point to CON. now convincing arguements: arguements made by PRO was a little better for example: PRO stated that islam's value to women is lower than its value to men and then PRO replied with a scientific explanation which showed women are weaker than female. second example: CON said there are at least 109 verses which command muslims to kill infidels and then PRO replied in a good way. I also have read the quran and I can debate with anybody that quran doesnt justify killing innocents of other faiths. characted ended.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar was a no-brainer, as Pro had several mistakes in that field. I really didn't find either side's argument very compelling, as Pro just kept talking about how perfect the Koran is while Con just kept talking about how it inspires Muslim extremists to do their stuff, and honestly, neither of those points really proves or disproves that Islam as a whole is perfect. Sources obviously go to Pro because he cited sources, while Con did not.
Vote Placed by gatermouth200 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Opposition team had much more convincing arguments.