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

Islamic Socialism Is Superior To Atheistic Socialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,552 times Debate No: 33603
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)




This is not a theological debate but the merits of Islamic Socialism and Atheistic Socialism in political theory and application.

1st round is for acceptance.
Open to anyone.


I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this Debate.

I will make my argument in three sections
I. Definitions
II. Theory of Islamic Socialism over Atheistic Socialism
III. Historical examples of both

I. Definitions:
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Atheist Socialism: Would be a nation whose State religion is Atheism and practices Socialism.

Islamic Socialism: Islamic socialism is a term coined by various Muslim leaders to describe a more spiritual form of Socialism.

The main advantage to Islamic Socialism rather then Atheistic Socialism is the addition social and moral incentive towards socialism which is obviously lacking in Atheistic Socialism. Islamic Society is based off of the Koran and Hadith texts stresses 5 pillars of faith. The Zakāt pillar of faith holds incredible importance to Socialism and Islam as it requires that all faithful must give a portion of their individual wealth and material possesions to those who are needy. The holy texts define it as follow:
Those living in Absolute Poverty (Al-Fuqarā').
Those restrained because they cannot meet their basic needs (Al-Masākīn).
The zakat collectors themselves (Al-Āmilīna 'Alaihā).
Non-Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam or wish to convert to Islam (Al-Mu'allafatu Qul$3;buhum).
People whom one is attempting to free from slavery or bondage. Also includes paying ransom or blood money (Diyya)(Fir-Riqāb)
Those who have incurred overwhelming debts while attempting to satisfy their basic needs (Al-Ghārimīn).
Those working in God's way (Fī Sabīlillāh).
Children of the street / Travellers (Ibnus-Sabīl).

These requirements which are universal to the more then 1 Billion Muslims across the world compliment the goals of Socialism and morally affirm the principals of Socialism. For Atheists whom the incentive of avoiding Eternal damnation adhering to absolute moral principals that transcend the universe are not existent. Socialism would be an ethical and economic decision only. Here is an example below of how an individual within an Atheistic society would have little reason to put society before himself:
Is robbing a good or an evil act? A normal balanced person would say it is evil.
How would a person who does not believe in the hereafter convince a powerful
and influential criminal that robbing is evil?
Suppose I am the most powerful and influential criminal in the world. At the
same time I am an Intelligent and a logical person. I say that robbing is good
because it helps me lead a luxurious life. Thus robbing is good for me.
If anybody can put forward a single logical argument as to why it is evil for me,
I will stop immediately. People usually put forward the following arguments:
a. The person who is robbed will face difficulties
Some may say that the person who is robbed will face difficulties. I certainly
agree that it is bad for the person who is robbed. But it is good for me. If I rob
a thousand dollars, I can enjoy a good meal at a 5 star restaurant.
b. Some one may rob you
Some people argue that someday I may be robbed. No one can rob me
because I am a very powerful criminal and I have hundreds of bodyguards. I can
rob anybody but nobody can rob me. Robbing may be a risky profession for a
common man but not for an influential person like me.
c. The police may arrest you
Some may say, if you rob, you can be arrested by the police. The police cannot
arrest me because I have the police on my payroll. I have the ministers on my
payroll. I agree that if a common man robs, he will be arrested and it will be bad
for him, but I am an extraordinarily influential and powerful criminal.
Give me one logical reason why it is bad for me and I will stop robbing.
d. Its easy money
Some may say its easy money and not hard-earned money. I agree completely
that it is easy money, and that is one of the main reasons why I rob. If a person
has the option of earning money the easy as well as the hard way, any logical
person would choose the easy way.
e. It is against humanity
Some may say it is against humanity and that a person should care for other
human beings. I counter argue by asking as to who wrote this law called
‘humanity’ and why should I follow it?
This law may be good for the emotional and sentimental people but I am a
logical person and I see no benefit in caring for other human beings.
f. It is a selfish act
Some may say that robbing is being selfish. It is true that robbing is a selfish act;
but then why should I not be selfish? It helps me enjoy life.
~Dr Zakir Naik

Now in an Islamic Society in which one would implement Socialism the philosophical hypothetical as shown above would
not be possible given the constant threat of Eternal Damnation and judgement after death.
I would like Con to show the Atheist solution to this philosophical hypothetical above. I would posit if Islamic Society
can provide greater incentive to place society above the selfish acts of the individual then it has a further advantage over Atheist society. Since the advantage exists of Islamic Society over Atheist Society to not act in a morally repugnant or selfish manner Islamic Socialism provides an edge over Atheist Society.

Islamic Socialism In Practice

The two main figure of Islamic Socialism is without question Mummar Gaddafhi.
Gaddafi's Accomplishments:
-Libya's rating on the Human Development Index sat above the average for the Arab States, the world or even the mark for High Human Development.
-lliteracy rates in Libya have fallen from 61 per cent in 1971 to 14 per cent in 2001. As of 2005, the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary education stood at 95.9, thus ensuring that Libya is likely to achieve MDG Goal 2 within the 2015 time frame. (Human Development Report 2007/2008)
-Undernourishment sat under at a mere 5%(lower then many capitalist countries today)
-Free health care for all citizens
-less Libyans under the poverty line then contemporary Socialist nations Vietnam and Laos, or for that matter Russia or the United States.
"lliteracy has been almost wiped out, as has homelessness – a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi era, where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centres around the country."

However many of these sort of reforms we find in Atheistic Socialism.
There is something else we find in Atheistic Socialism that we do not find in Islamic Socialism and that is the brutal repression of all things of the old society. Islamic Socialism functions in harmony with Islamic Society obviously which is the fastest growing religion in the world. Atheistic Socialism requires the destruction of the old society and the religion within them. In China during the Cultural Revolution 20 million died in the attempt to destroy Confucian society and Taoist/Buddhist Religion. In Cambodia under the Khmer Rogue countless died, religious leaders were executed, and Muslims were forced to eat pork. Similar were taken in Albania, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union. However of those Atheistic Socialist examples not one survived the Cold War. China rather then collapsing converted to a market economy in the late 1970's turning it into the international center for cheap labor that it is today. Gaddafi's Libya by contrast survived the cold war(20 years longer), participated in no mass murders to change the beliefs of the Libyan people and did not convert to a market economy like in China. Furthermore none of the nations which practiced state Atheism during the Cold war do so today with the exception of North Korea which continues to have a considerable religious population. For the mass killings, earlier collapse, and inability to convert the population to the desired ideology I conclude Atheistic Socialism historically have proved inferior to Islamic Socialism.



If a government has a national religion of atheism they show no affiliation towards a particular sector of their society they merely state they have no belief in god. This however does not mean that the citizens of the country are not free to choose a personal religion where is it written that an atheist social society must oppress religion ?. It simply means the government will not be biased towards a particular religion a similar policy to that seen In japan which ""enjoys full religious freedom based on Article 20 of its Constitution""

""we do not find in Islamic Socialism and that is the brutal repression of all things of the old society. Islamic Socialism functions in harmony with Islamic Society obviously which is the fastest growing religion in the world"" Surely in this point you are talking about the implementation of an atheist society where there previously was not one. The same would be involved if you tried to implement a Islamist socialist society where there previously was no tone so your point is not on the merits of an Islamist socialist society but the implementation of one which would be encountered by implementing a new type of society anywhere therefore your point is invalid.

You talk about the pros of and Islamic society but there are also strong negative sides to such a culture. For example if a women is raped and deemed to have committed adultery then under Islamic law the it is the women is stoned to death. They consider women to be inferior in every way in iran this week they have voted to make it impossible for a women to run for president. Another offence punishable by death is being a homosexual, just for being a homosexual in a country where the law is based on Islam you will be executed by the state in the name of god how can this be justified? I include a links relating to examples of both of these laws being enforced.

There is also a brutal nature to the punishments handed out for example if you steel anything you have your hand cut off no matter what age you are there are examples of children younger than the age of 10 being mutilated for life because of one mistake .If you tell I lie no matter for what reason and are found out you have your tongue cut out. These punishments are acts of a brutality and have no place in modern day society.

You say look at Gadhafi and Islam requires that all faithful must give a portion of their individual wealth and material possessions to those who are needy however "" Libya has high levels of social inequality"" so the wealthy are obviously not giving a significant proportion of their wages. Furthermore people who live in atheist system are free to donate money to charities or local funds and is not only solely available to a Islamic system.

You claim it was Gadhafi who was solely responsible for the turnaround in education in Libya "" -literacy rates in Libya have fallen from 61 per cent in 1971 to 14 per cent in 2001. As of 2005, the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary education stood at 95.9"" However "" UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003"" "" Many international oil companies returned to the country, including oil giants Shell and ExxonMobil.[130] After sanctions were lifted "" So the rise in primary enrolment cannot fully be attributed to Islamic socialism but is more likely to be the knock on effect of the improvement in the financial situation of the country.

I think the ultimate rebuttal against your assertion of what a great system Gadhafi brought to the country is the fact Gadhafi is no longer leader. He was overthrown by a his own population who were deeply unhappy with his style of government.

Finally an atheist society has the potential to adapt and involve according to the times we all share the same human desire for survival and most understand the basic necessity for laws to protect our human rights. We should not however base our entire society of a book written over 1000 years ago we as a society have to adapt. It is no longer acceptable to stone homosexuals or chop the hands of children who have stolen some food. This is why a atheist social society is better than an Islamic social society.
Debate Round No. 2


Now the merits of that is most definitely the dual nature of Islamic culture as both traditional and revolutionary. By this I mean that no where throughout human history or even today do we find naturally Atheistic societies on the nation level but just majorities produced via mass destruction of the old system. Historically speaking Atheistic Society on the national level have arisen via brutal destruction of the old society however I suppose that is now inconsequential as you are now arguing for Secularism rather then "State Atheism."

I. Addressing The Attacks On Islamic Society And Gaddafhi

Now I would say what Iran was doing despicable and would never have been condoned by an Islamic Socialist Nation.
I stress that you not assume that because Iran represents such an extreme vision that all Muslims do and all Islamic nations. What you are in Affect saying is:
Iran is Islamic, Islamic socialism is Islamic therefore Islamic Socialism=Iran's views.
But that is like saying: Ayn Rand was Atheistic, Pol Pot was Atheistic, therefore all Atheist society holds Pol Pot's views.
To substantiate this claim lets have a look at the Green Book itself(Gaddafhi's social vision) thought about these issues.

On Gender Relations:

" It is an undisputed fact that both
man and woman are human beings. It
follows as a self-evident fact that
woman and man are equal as human
beings. Discrimination between man
and woman is a flagrant act of oppression without any justification. For
woman eats and drinks as man eats
and drinks ... Woman loves and hates
as man loves and hates ... Woman
thinks, learns and understands as man
thinks, learns and understands"


" There is no difference between man
and woman in all that concerns humanity. None of them can marry the
other against his or her will, or divorce
without a just trial. Neither the woman
nor the man can remarry without a
previous agreement on divorce. The
woman is the owner of the house be-
cause it is one of the suitable and
necessary conditions for a woman who
menstruates, conceives, and cares for
her children. The woman is the owner
of the maternity shelter, which is the
So your charge that all Islamists view woman as inferior to men has no weight.
Furthermore in the Great Libyan Socialist Arab Jarimahya was any homosexual stoned to death as mandated by
the state?

Onto Gaddafhi himself now.
You claim that all the benefit Islamic socialism gave to Libya has no weight because the regime ceased to exist. Now you claim also that Gaddafhi's defeat in the civil war means that the people could not stand his regime and everyone was aiming to get rid of him. However if we examine the actual civil war itself a much different story emerges. At the civil war began as simple demonstrations not demanding Gaddafhi's removal or the destruction of the government but one in Benghazi concerning victims of a past tragedy at the Italian consulate. later on the 17th of February when the civil war began these organizers denounced the rebels as seeking political gain and hijacking the demonstrations for their own ends. They aimed for the peace and stability that existed in Libya at the time. A man in Benghazi was arrested for inciting a demonstration under the claim that a prison was on fire and they had to save the prisoners inside. After confessing to making this allegation up, he was released the same day. Regardless some persisted in demonstrating and security had to intervene to prevent a clash between pro-government demonstrators and the emerging dissidents. On the 17th a series of sunrise attacks stormed military and government compounds as video footage shows the authorities firing into the air and retreating. When one military compound fell, all the soldiers were slaughtered. later Rebels rolled in never before used tanks and anti-aircraft guns they captured to silence any opposition to their insurrection.
Gaddafhi's response was of course war. This civil war would rage for many months and Gaddafhi's supporters were winning the war.
Infect the rebels were being overpowered by the Pro-Gaddafhi army so badly that by march 19th the rebels had even thrown back to Benghazi itself! However NATO imposed a "no fly zone" which to them was justification for providing air strikes on Pro-Gaddafhi forces and bombing government strongholds killing hundreds of civilians. So if you think Gaddafhi and all of his accomplishments are rendered invalid by the fact that he lost a war against NATO and an uprising of militants then that is weak argument. Because in effect you are saying might makes right, are you saying whoever wins a war is right and whoever loses is wrong?

Finally I will ask you to please provide an answer to the moral dilemma I proposed in round 1.
Also some historical examples would be nice.


You fail to say that the majority of the opposition forces consisted of civilians, such as teachers, students, lawyers, and oil workers, and a contingent of professional soldiers that defected from the Libyan Army, this showed that the civilians themselves were not content with Gadhafi"s rule. This is completely opposite to principle of a socialist society.

Gadhafi expelled from Libya all ethnic Italians , all Jewish people , he criminalized homosexuality, these policies may well be accepted in Islam but there is little support for such detrimental policies in a large proportion of the word. During the civil war he instructed his soldiers to rape and torture the enemies of the state and he is widely linked to helping the Lockerbie bomber kill 243 people and supported the IRA terrorist organisation.

You may well say that this was the actions of one individual but you would be wrong all of the actions are supported by the Quran.

Let"s not forget Saddam Husain was a leading member of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party as it represented many of his beliefs. You say that Iran represents an extreme nation however here are some quotes from the Quran that show Islamic principles will never be completely compatible with other nations in the world.

The Quran says "Strike terror into God's enemies, and your enemies" (Quran 8.60)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

This clearly demonstrates that for a true Islamic socialist nation to be formed they must first remove all other religions demonstrated by Gadhafi when he expelled Jewish people for no other reason than their religion.

The Quran also teaches ""Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status"" so although it claims men and women are equal in practice it is not the case for example the Quran teaches that the testimony of one man is worth that of 2 women.

If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them (Surah 4:34)

China is a socialist atheist nation and yet it is estimated over 300 million people are actively religious in china religions include Chinese folk religion, Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity,Shamanism, Islam, Manicheism, Zoroastrianism. Clearly showing just because the state has a atheist stance does not prevent the people being religious clearly a better more inclusive socialist society. They are able to exercise their right to choose their religion. This would not be the case in a Islamic socialist nation as proven in Libya such policies Cause friction and lead to conflict between people.

China is the second biggest economy in the world and some forecast it to overtake American as the biggest by as early as 2016. China boasts a high literacy rate among 15-to-24-year-olds at 98.9% the is a remarkable achievement considering nearly one seventh of the earth population live in china. This shows that atheist socialist nations can be successful.

As for the moral dilemma you pose I feel even in Islamic society would not be able to provide a suitable reason to the criminal in question. The point is more about morality just because as a state you do not make your decisions or laws based on a holy book, does not mean there is no moral basis in society. If a criminal of that nature were to exist then obviously he should be dealt with by the justice system just like any other criminal. I feel any argument that he could be persuaded to change in an Islamic socialist state realise heavily on whether or not he believes in the Islamic teachings something he clearly does not as he is coming these crimes in the first place .
I would like you to respond to my point it was the improvement in the financial system not the the style of government that improved the quality of life in Libya

To summaries most wars thought history have been waged because of a conflict in religious views between nations. If we want to have a peaceful and economically stable world we need to be accepting of everyone"s different views, take everyone as equal and be able to work together regardless of creed, colour, gender or sexual orientation for the good of the nation. This cannot be achieved through having a state religion that excludes parts of society that have a different faith branding them as "" God's enemies"" or rate women as lesser beings than men or brands homosexuality as a crime this divides communities. This is why an atheist socialism society is better than an Islamic socialism society.

Debate Round No. 3


Yes my friend but you fail to mention that civilians as in the masses of Sirte, Tripoli and Bani Walid fought for Gaddafhi to the end and beyond. This was a civil war not a simple revolution such as Egypt and Tunisia. Two factions in which the civilian population is divided is a civil war. The Republicans in Spain lost the civil war to the Nationalists and their fascist allies. The Nationalists won, does that mean the Spanish People truly wanted the Nationalists? Does that make the Nationalists and their actions right?

"these policies may well be accepted in Islam but there is little support for such detrimental policies in a large proportion of the word."

Are you judging this from a Atheistic perspective? What Universal right and wrong are you judging these policies to be right and wrong from? Are you saying sense social pressures say something is right or wrong it makes it so? Did Germany not vote for the Nazis? Did they not judge from their own social pressures that ethnic purification and eugenics were acceptable? Did that make it alright? Are you claiming that since a majority of this world is non-Islamic that certain policies which exist within Islamic society are right or wrong.

Gaddafhi himself said that a Libyan committed this crime against humanity, however he did not give the command. Gaddafhi payed compensation to those affected for an act caused by one of his own citizens. Even after this criminal citizen was released returned to Libya. who cost Libya so much, Gaddafhi forgave him and welcomed him as a Libyan.

Oh yes lets talk Ba'ath. "the Ba'ath movement shared several characteristics with the European fascist movement, such as "the attempt to synthesize radical, illiberal nationalism and non-Marxist socialism, a romantic, mythopoetic, and elitist 'revolutionary' vision, the desire both to create a 'new man' and to restore past greatness, a centralised authoritarian party divided into 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' factions and so forth; several close associates later admitted that 'Aflaq had been directly inspired by certain fascist and Nazi theorists"(World Fascism: A Historical EncyclopediaPg. 84)
Do you really believe Fascism is a legitimate form of Socialism? Fascism in anyform whether Christan, Atheist, or Islamic is wrong. This does not make Atheist, Islamic, or Christian Society better then one another on the basis of how disgusting Fascism
functions within their world view.

You forget to Mention that the Italians had invaded Libya in the 1910's and repressed them under tight imperial rule. You also fail to mention only 100 jews remained in Libya by the time of Gaddafhi's rise to power in 1969. They were made to leave and Gaddafhi later went on to compensate them. You also forget that Gaddafhi was aiding the Palestinians who had been under Zionist oppression for decades. Also are you ignoring all of Gaddafhi's accomplishments and his views on gender equality that I posted in my last argument?

Onto Islam itself.

Are you asserting Islam is pro-terrorism?
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: ‘No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another’ (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”

Furthermore, does Islamic Socialism need to be compatible? Are you claiming since Islamic Morality is contrary to other societies that it is wrong? Is Atheistic morality not contrary to many societies around the world?

Also please look over once more Gaddafhi's quotations of the Islamic Socialist view on gender equality.

China.... You are saying contemporary China today is a shining example of Atheistic Socialism succeeding.

Even the capitalist media is forced to report on the condition of the working class in China.

Recently, THE INDEPENDENT (14.01.06) illustrated the conditions of the working class in China by referring to “illegal, exhausting and dangerous conditions”. It went on to discuss a report which stated that “It found an army of powerless rural immigrants toiling up to 14 hours a day, almost every day. Many were allowed just one day off and paid £50 a month for shifts that breached Chinese Law and International Labour Organisation rules”.

THE INDEPENDENT is only voicing fears that such a pool of labour puts British capitalism at a competitive disadvantage against lower Labour costs within China allowing them to produce cheaper goods on the world market. The Owners of the INDEPENDENT have no interest in the working class except as a means of exploitation and the acceptance of capitalist ideas.

But for Socialists, the existence of such anti-working class conditions, the existence of the wages system and class exploitation demonstrates, from a Marxist position, that China is Capitalist not Socialist.

Since China is not a legitimate socialist country and is possibly one of the worst countries in the entire world for worker's rights
it is not really evidence of Atheist Socialism.

Also since you have failed to respond about my claims about the ethical dilemma and weaknesses of Atheistic Socialism in earlier rounds I am assuming that you accept them.



You say I "" fail to mention that civilians as in the masses of Sirte, Tripoli and Bani Walid fought for Gaddafhi to the end and beyond""

You have provided no evidence for this. Here is an article I have posted some key extracts below but please read it in full it is very eye opening and directly contradicts my opponents version of events.'s_response_to_the_Libyan_civil_war

"" Gaddafi had also stated that "those who don't love me do not deserve to live".

"" Gaddafi was importing civilians to Misrata to use as human shields""

"" Gaddafi started to fight against civilians evidence surfaced that Libyan military units have refused to shoot protesters and Gaddafi had hired foreign mercenaries""

"" One group of mercenaries from Niger, who had been recruited from the streets with promises of money, included a soldier of just 13 years of age""

Nowhere does it state the civilians of Libya fought for Gadhafi because you have provided no evidence and I cannot find any I will presume you made a mistake.

Please read my round 3 paragraph 13 where I address your moral dilemma. You have failed to come back to me on the financial situation being responsible for the increased quality of life in Libya rather than Gadhafi"s rule.

You ask the question from what position am I judging moral standards ""Are you judging this from an Atheistic perspective? What Universal right and wrong are you judging these policies to be right and wrong from? Are you saying sense social pressures say something is right or wrong it makes it so? Did Germany not vote for the Nazis?""

Please let me expand. I was judging based on the declaration of human rights the very corner stone of a civil society. To answer your question, no the Nazis did not abide by human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are basic rights that I argue every human being should be able to have a Islamic society will not allow for this I will list some of the discrepancies between Islamic teachings and human rights.

Article 1 ""All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights""

Article 18 ""Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom""

Article 19 ""Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression""

Article 1, 18 and 19 are directly contradictory to the teachings of the Quran "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.(Surah 5:51)""

Article 1 does not differentiate between men and women but the Quran does

"" If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them (Surah 4:34)""

"" Of course, men are a degree above them in status"

Article 2 states that ""Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.""

Gadhafi himself ignored the human rights of the Jews he expelled purely based on religion.

Finally Article 5 states ""No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."" Surely cutting of someone"s hand for stealing a loaf of bread (common practice in Islamic nations) should be considered both cruel and inhumane.

The discrepancies above clearly show how Islamic teaching breach the human rights act. In an atheist society the government is not bound by any religious book therefore will be able to uphold all human rights demonstrating an atheist society is morally superior.

Now on to your description of the Lockerbie bombings. ""Gadhafi payed compensation to those affected for an act caused by one of his own citizens. Even after this criminal citizen was released returned to Libya. who cost Libya so much, Gadhafi forgave him and welcomed him as a Libyan. ""

This is how YOU view the Lockerbie bombing that killed 243 people. Not only do you defend Gadhafi"s state sponsored terrorism. You fail to mention Gadhafi gave the bomber a hero"s welcome home to celebrate his success at killing the innocent victims as well as ordering the bombing In the first place that should not be praised but condemned.

Here are some links providing strong evidence of gadflies personal involvement

All from international reputable news organisations.

"" Since China is not a legitimate socialist country"" This is your opinion after reading one news article you fail to meet the burden of proof it if impossible to prove because china is a socialist state.

You ask ""Furthermore, does Islamic Socialism need to be compatible? Are you claiming since Islamic Morality is contrary to other societies that it is wrong? Is Atheistic morality not contrary to many societies around the world?""

The debate is ""Islamic Socialism Is Superior To Atheistic Socialism"" surely if Islamic socialism is not compatible it cannot be superior to a system that is compatible. As pointed out in my previous rounds in an atheist socialist society people are allowed to express their religious views in their own way as seen in modern day china.

To summaries

An atheist society is a more accepting of different faiths and ways of life making it a more inclusive society. A family can practice Islam in an atheist socialist society if they so wish but a family cannot practice Judaism in a Islamic socialist society. A world where we are more accepting to peoples faiths and abide by all human rights is clearly a better world for every one that is why an atheist socialist society is superior to that of an Islamic socialist society.

I would like to take this opportunity thank my opponent for an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leninist 2 years ago
I guess that whole revolution in Libya took some wind out of that sail.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
@Kitten All politics are based off of morality. Theology would be arguing that Allah is real, I did no such thing but talked about the benefits that exist morally under Islamic Socialism........
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
Eh hem
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
Round 4 argument should be up Saturday night, i guess everyone is watching this one XD
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
I would just like to address your point about "" to claim that a religion is a cause for a war, or even an excuse for a war doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and never has. The motivations behind a war are always fundemental,""

I will answer this by providing a list of conflicts that have been fought over religious beliefs.

Muslim conquests, The Crusades, Reconquista, French Wars of Religion, Palestine and Israel, Pakistan and India, Ethiopia " Somalia, Buddhist Uprising, Nigerian conflict, Lebanese Civil War , Second Sudanese Civil War , Thirty Years' War.

The list continues through history the biggest cause of war has been a conflict in religious teachings.
Posted by tacetJACK 3 years ago
I do believe Mr. Witherspoon addressed the morality of Islam in round 2, and rather effectively might I add. To hold the practices of one society as an example of a failure of a religion is not valid, and also inconsequential in light of the debate.

One point that I think was made but not particularly highlighted was the lack of universal truth in an atheistic belief system. "Individualism", as it was stated, provideds no unifying truth because in terms of atheism, truth is relative, providing no solid ground to create a "just consensus"...."just" in terms of what? The publice opinion at the time?

On an unrelated note, while I claim no religious affiliation, to claim that a religion is a cause for a war, or even an excuse for a war doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and never has. The motivations behind a war are always fundemental, and most always attributed to a desire for power, or, simply put, greed.

Ah, one more. Dawkins is quite spiteful. Read the God Delusion.
Posted by serp888 3 years ago
"No more vengeful and spiteful then New Atheists like Richard Dawkins. However immoral and unethical? Who gets to define moral and ethical?"

Richard Dawkins is neither vengeful nor spiteful-- all he does is make valid points against religion, and people just take personal offense to that, unsurprisingly since people are usually touchy about religion. But i'm glad you agree that Islam is vengeful and spiteful. Even if Richard Dawkins was vengeful and spiteful, you're saying that islam is equivalent to him, not superior.

Also, it's certainly not Islam that gets to define moral and ethical--moral and ethical in Islam include stoning a raped woman to death because she's unpure, killing homosexuals, obliterating non believers, and absurdly large punishments for minor offenses such as stealing.

"It is impossible in a purely atheistic society to have permanent truth but just social consensus. "

Proof? I would argue that it's impossible in a purely Islamic society to have just social consensus. Furthermore, here is a short history of brutal wars caused or related to Islam. If anything, religion gives people an excuse to commit more amoral acts, because God said it was ok.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
Yes for I am not affirming or denying the existence of any deity. Just the society and ethical forces in a society created by that faith.
Posted by Wolfram 3 years ago
I did not state my position clearly, let me clarify - My case was about Islamic socialism being more theological than politics and its application as an economy - which is why I considered Islamic socialism as a religion-biased political system and a barbaric nation. Like the merits of politic system of Iran being unconventional to human rights, for example.

Much as I don't want to acknowledge Islamic socialism and its place in humanity, but I realized the merits of Iran's economy is still functioning. Although the roots of Islamic socialism may not entirely conventional to human rights, but Islamic socialism does have its own economy system and it would function better than of Soviet Union.

"Is that what you are calling off topic?"
No, the case was my argument regard the merits of theology against Islamic socialism. You mentioned this debate is not about theological debate, right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources for Con were far more reliable and credible, though both did use Wikipedia unfortunately. Pro claimed the debate would not be about theology, but the political system but then argued significantly about the theology of Islam. Pro also failed to meet his burden for showing Islamic socialism is "better" politically and in theory. In fact, he spent a great deal of time arguing morality not politics.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sources from established British newspapers, where as Pro had sources from Islamic blogs. Both sited Wikipedia. I felt that the violence and human rights issues are not directly related to socialism itself. Both gave examples on whether Atheism is more moral or Islam is more moral.