The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
WhyAbhorReality
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

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 2 votes the winner is...
Topaet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 101606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Topaet

Pro

Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e.g. human rights).

Islamic culture = The cultural practices common to historically Islamic people.

Rules:
1. Provide evidence for your counter-arguments.
2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies
3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate.
4. The fourth round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments.
5. Do not forfeit.

Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules or if you do not agree with the definitions.
Good luck and have fun in the debate!
WhyAbhorReality

Con

I agree with the rules and the definitions provided.

I would like to provide 2 more points of reference in regards to the rules, I don't want us regressing into a debate on fallacy lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

My argument is based around disproving that Islamic culture and the Islamic faith is "Immoral".

Having read previous debates you have had I would like to ask you refrain from going overkill on links unless each link is given a reason and an opinion on its contents in relation to the debate, rather than me debating the full content of a list of links if possible!
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Pro

1. Islam is against religious freedom:
[1]: According to the hadiths, apostates are to be punished by death: Sahih al-Bukhari 56:226, [2] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2632, [3] Sahih al-Bukhari 88:5.
[4]: A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 40% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries support the death penalty for apostasy.
[5] According to the Qur'an, apostates will be greatly punished: Quran 9:66, [6] Quran 16: 106, [7] Quran 4:89.

2. Islamic culture supports Islamic terror:
[8] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 28% of the Muslim world population believe that suicide bombings are occasionally, sometimes, or often justified.
[9] A recent study by NOP Research has revealed that about 25% of British Muslims have affirmed that the 7/7 attacks were justified.
[10] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that 35% of French Muslims, 24% of British Muslims, 13% of German Muslims, 25% of Spanish Muslims and 71% of Nigerian Muslims believe that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often, sometimes or rarely justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.
[11] According to a recent study about 42% of Turkish Muslims believe that Muslims were the true victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack, and 20% remarked that the Charlie Hebdo employees had deserved death for depicting Muhammad.

3. Islamic culture is sexist and most Muslims are sexist:
[12] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 86% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that women must always obey their husbands.
[12] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 27% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that women should not be allowed to decide whether they want to wear the veil or not.
[13] Islamic countries have the worst women's rights on earth (Yemen is ranked 144 of 144, Pakistan 143, Syria 142, Saudi Arabia 141, Iran 139, Egypt 132, Turkey 130, United Arab Emirates 124).

4. Islam is homophobic and a large majority of Muslims are homophobic:
[14] According to the Qur'an, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Quran 7:80-84 and [15] 6:165-66.
[16] The only countries where there is still the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic countries.
[17] According to Sharia, homosexuality is to be punished by death.
[18] According to the hadiths, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Abu Dawud 40:112, [19] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2658.
[20] A recent study by the Pew Research Center has revealed that about 89% of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries believe that homosexuality is immoral.

"I would like to provide 2 more points of reference in regards to the rules, I don't want us regressing into a debate on fallacy lol." They are included in rule 2.

"I would like to ask you refrain from going overkill on links..." Unfortunately, this is not really possible because I try to use statistics, Hadiths and Qur'an verses as evidence for my arguments.

"...unless each link is given a reason..." Citing sources is important and a good enough reason.

"...and an opinion on its contents in relation to the debate..." These links serve as evidence only.

Sources:
[1]: https://sunnah.com...
[2]: https://sunnah.com...
[3]: https://sunnah.com...
[4]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[5]: https://quran.com...
[6]: https://quran.com...
[7]: https://quran.com...
[8]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[9]: http://www.cbsnews.com...
[10]: http://pewresearch.org...
[11]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
[12]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[13]: http://reports.weforum.org...
[14]: https://quran.com...
[15]: https://quran.com...
[16]: http://old.ilga.org...
[17]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[18]: https://sunnah.com...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[20]: http://www.pewforum.org...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

That is quite a lot of information to tackle at once but I will give it my best shot.

Before I tackle the arguments made I would first like to put forward a few arguments that I believe are important to consider before you can assert that "Islam" and its culture are Immoral, either historically or currently.

A.
Islam, like all other religions, is composed of multiple different sects which believe in different interpretations of the Qur'an. [a1]. It is of my opinion that Judging Islam by the actions of one group in particular, who do not represent the whole of Islam, is the same as defining Christianity by the actions of only Catholics, or Mormons. Due to the historical claims of Islam being Immoral, the actions of all other religions during the same period of time must also be examined when defining what was considered to be immorality. For further evidence that there are sects of Muslims that don't believe every verse and have completely different values to other Muslims, I would refer to the Ahmadiyya [a2], of which there are over 10 million followers. There are many other sects that I could name [a3], although the Ahmadiyya offer a good picture of how similar divisions within other religions are in terms of how they interpret the 'holy' books and break off depending on philosophical interpretation. I would also like to offer an alternative story about some of lesser known countries that follow Islam [a4], proving that not all Islamic countries have a history of warfare, and for those that do there are many more reasons for such warfare than just the religion.

[a1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...
[a2]. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[a3]. https://www.quora.com...
[a4]. http://musliminc.com...

B.
What is 'moral' is defined by the person who judges. If you are from a western culture, which I assume you are, then your views on morality are based upon laws which were defined by evolving Christian values throughout time. In the Bible, homosexuality also has verses against it, which are used by some biblical literalist sects to this day. For hundreds of years, this was the law and people would be punishable by death in many instances [b1]. Verses in the bible also include the same kind of opinions towards women that western culture in general now deems inappropriate, but again only some groups believe this is something that should be taken seriously. With minor alterations, a free speech society and a few gullible people, you can make any rules you like based around 'scripture', which can be seen in Mormonism [b2], which shows with less violence and a unique cultural environment, multiple wives per man is suddenly seen as acceptable.
Note: this is not acceptable to me, but that is irrelevant. It could be argued that all cultures are immoral, Islam for one is not a single culture, and is no different to any other.

[b1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...
[b2]. https://inews.co.uk...

C.
Media reporting is sometimes intentional propaganda used by governments and religions to instill hate and fear in others for political gain. It is true there are Islamic governments and groups that use faith to justify a holy war. The same can be said of the other major Abrahamic beliefs. The question should be why and by who. Hate led movements create their own radicalization, and is the reason extremist groups begin in the first place. Jihadists in ISIS have a belief that the whole of Islam has to be at war with everyone else, and are happy for Islam to be classified as a whole which they aim for. When hate movements exist they push young adults closer to radicalization, making the hate preachers jobs easier. Human beings of all faiths, and atheists, are all at risk of being misled by hate groups and all people are seeking some form of spirituality in their lives, making the holy words seem so much sweeter when you see people calling for you to die to begin with.
These people are more victims than anything else. The hate movements against Islam may be more involved than we all realize.

Arguments against religious freedom being opposed can be found in [a2].
Arguments explaining why sexism and homosexuality exists and how historically it has been that way for some time everywhere can be found in [B], sexism has only recently become more balanced in western culture since WW1. Also see Catholic persecution of women in Ireland:
[d1]. http://home.bt.com...
[d2]. https://en.wikipedia.org...

People supporting Islamic terror can be explained through psychology as outlined in [C], although more explanation can be offered in required, although some may find psychoanalysis offensive, that is up to you.

Islamic culture from within would not be seen as Immoral, and neither can be from an outside perspective without basing your own morality on a set of laws that only came about through long periods of getting it wrong before 'getting it right'.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Pro

"A" is the most relevant of your arguments since "B" and "C" seem to contain a logical fallacy that is called "Two wrongs make a right" [21] which is against the rules (see rule 2).

And because you ?admit? that Islamic culture is immoral in "B" and "C".
B: "It could be argued that all cultures are immoral, Islam for one is not a single culture, and is no different to any other."
C: "Islamic culture from within would not be seen as Immoral, and neither can be from an outside perspective without basing your own morality on a set of laws that only came about through long periods of getting it wrong before 'getting it right'."

Evidence that B contains a logical fallacy:
"In the Bible, homosexuality ALSO has verses against it, which are used by some biblical literalist sects to this day."
"Verses in the bible ALSO include the SAME kind of opinions towards women that western culture in general now deems inappropriate, but again only some groups believe this is something that should be taken seriously."

Evidence that C contains a logical fallacy:
"It is true there are Islamic governments and groups that use faith to justify a holy war. The SAME can be said of the Other major Abrahamic beliefs."
"Arguments explaining why sexism and homosexuality exists and how historically it has been that way for some time everywhere can be found in [B], sexism has only recently become more balanced in western culture since WW1. Also see Catholic persecution of women in Ireland:"

A: "It is of my opinion that Judging Islam by the actions of one group in particular, who do not represent the whole of Islam, is the same as defining Christianity by the actions of only Catholics, or Mormons."
[22] and [23] prove that 97-99,9% of all Muslims are either Sunni or Shia Muslims (I judged both of these) the very small minority of less than 3% is almost irrelevant and does not represent Islam.

"I would also like to offer an alternative story about some of lesser known countries that follow Islam [a4], proving that not all Islamic countries have a history of warfare, and for those that do there are many more reasons for such warfare than just the religion."
Since you have not provided a definition for warfare I will: the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
I agree that there are some countries that do not have a long history of warfare. However, that was not one of my arguments.

Your a4 source was very interesting because the top 10 best Islamic countries that you were able to find contained Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia which I believe prove that Islamic culture (even in the best countries that you could find) is immoral.

Saudi Arabia: Women's rights rank 141 out of 144 [13], There is still the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, atheism, apostasy, sodomy, sorcery and witchcraft in Saudi Arabia [24], Saudi Arabia's official law is Sharia with some elements of Egyptian, French, and customary law [27].

Turkey: Women's rights rank 130 out of 144 [13], According to a recent study about 42% of Turkish Muslims believe that Muslims were the true victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack, and 20% remarked that the Charlie Hebdo employees had deserved death for depicting Muhammad [11], 65% of Turkish Muslims completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband [12], 85% of Turkish Muslims say that homosexual behaviour is immoral [20].

Indonesia: Women's rights rank 88 out of 144 [13], 33% of Indonesian Muslims are in favor of stoning as punishment for adultery [4], 93% of Indonesian Muslims completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband [12], 68% of Indonesian Muslims say that wife should not be able to divorce her husband [12], 95% of Indonesian Muslims say that homosexual behaviour is immoral [20], 97,5% of all Indonesian Muslim women have their genitals mutilated before they are 18 years old [25].

Genital mutilation: Health effects depend on the procedure. They can include recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits [26].

If you did not intend to admit that Islamic culture is immoral, I would appreciate further explanation about why killing homosexuals (argument 4) and apostates (argument 1) is not immoral and why gender equality is not required for a moral culture (argument 3).

Sources:
[4]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[11]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...
[12]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[13]: http://reports.weforum.org...
[20]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[21]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[22]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[23]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[24]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[25]: http://pdf.usaid.gov... p.25
[26]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[27]: https://www.cia.gov...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

Ok, like I said I didn't want to get into debates about what is a fallacy, I don't agree with your definition or accusations made about my arguments being fallacious. If we fully examined this argument, your whole argument is a fallacy, asserting a whole faith that is spread across numerous different countries with varying laws and cultures to be immoral.

"It could be argued that all cultures are immoral, Islam for one is not a single culture, and is no different to any other." Is not an admission of immorality, it says 'it could be argued'. My aim was to show that what is moral to you is only what your culture asserts it to be. Even your own culture has religions that hold toxic views towards homosexuals, and the ongoing abortion debate shows morality differs even within one countries culture. What you think is moral now, wasn't the case 20 years ago, never mind 1000 years ago. The same is said for all cultures and countries. Therefore in the strict definition of the argument "Islamic culture and Islam are immoral" it depends on your morals. If you are a muslim in tunisia, you would say no of course we are not immoral. If they held extreme views, like somebody who hates Islam does, then they would call western culture immoral. I do not condone actions that persecute others, but by classifying Islam as a whole are you not persecuting those among them who do not hold extreme views yourself?

Again with my arguments about homosexuality was to show that the whole world was once like it is in Islam, and views in support of homosexuality are actually only held by a very small percentage of the global population. All religions have demonstrated this. The answer to this is not bashing them and calling them evil, but offering education and our supposed enlightened views. If we are to go back before Mohammed we would see Islamic culture was once the hub of the world for knowledge and influenced much of western thought, before they were trapped into a new ideology. Religion in western culture is still the root cause of much intolerance, we understand this but on a mass scale religion keeps up the hatred, not only for opposing religions but other politics also, which is what it all is really.

You missed [a1]. I believe. When looking at Sunni and Shia, they have many sects within those areas also. History shows us Islam is as rich in history and as diverse as our culture, we just don't learn much about it [a2]. Cultures are progressing in these areas that you speak of, but to expect them to conform to a minority world view held by enlightened westerners is why America gets as much hate as it does, for thinking they are judge, jury and executioner.

[a1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...
[a2]. https://en.wikipedia.org...

I agree that story had some controversial countries to add on to the list, although the acts of governments do not account for the people of the country. It was referring to Saudi Arabia as the amount of tourists it gets per year and very little violence comes from it. I'm British, christian by birth, but to hold me accountable for the actions of my government, it's religious history or laws is unfair. The same can be said of any national. It was once legal for me to smoke in Pubs, it is not anymore. Was I immoral for doing it back then? If muslim women, or men who have lived in these families their whole lives following the same teachings passed down for generations, why would that person believe they are doing anything wrong?
As I say, our culture was once the same, only enlightened thinkers evolved our thought over time, usually through scientific progress.

To say there are not Muslims who wish for changing attitudes and it has not improved from the past is insulting at best, as you can see in my previous arguments with the Ahmadiyya movement. Sufism, considered for a long time to be the most peaceful of the Islamic schools can be seen being argued about in recent times: http://kashmirreader.com...
Sufism is strongly linked with pantheism, which is accepting of science such as space and evolution. Things conservative Americans are even against.

At no point do I say Islam is not immoral by the human rights values held by majority in the west. However their values do not mean their argument is correct, your values do not speak for everybody. I think your hatred toward Islam is immoral, you might not. It does not make me right. The incidents you refer to are all in specific countries, and clearly show that it differs from place to place. Islam in one country in not determined by the actions in another. This makes the whole argument a fallacy, and is nothing more than dangerous rhetoric created by hate groups.
Debate Round No. 3
Topaet

Pro

"At no point do I say Islam is not immoral by the human rights values held by majority in the west."
Then you lost the debate because I clearly stated that this is my definition and that you should not accept the debate if you do not agree with the definition. And you even agreed with the definitions "I agree with the rules and the definitions provided." (round 1 con)
"Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e.g. human rights)."
"Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules or if you do not agree with the definitions."

"Islam in one country in not determined by the actions in another. This makes the whole argument a fallacy..."
I cited global sources [12],[20],[4],[8],[14],[17] as often as possible and I cited hadiths (Sunni hadtihs) [1],[2],[3],[18],[19] and Qur'an verses (which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God) [5],[6],[7],[14],[15] only 4 of my 20 sources in the opening argument were for specific countries.

"If we fully examined this argument, your whole argument is a fallacy, asserting a whole faith that is spread across numerous different countries with varying laws and cultures to be immoral."
The majority of Muslims (Sunni) believe in the revelation from God (Qur'an) and the hadiths which are immoral (read the opening argument again for further explanation).

"This makes the whole argument a fallacy and is nothing more than dangerous rhetoric created by hate groups."
How are facts "dangerous rhetoric" and which "hate group" created "it"?

Conclusion
My opponent admitted that Islam is immoral and did not respect rule 2 (see pro round 3).
I had better conduct because I respected the rules. (Pro)
While I do see several spelling and grammar mistakes in his texts, I believe that my grammar is not perfect either (tied)
My opponent was not able to rebut all of my arguments and even admitted that Islam is immoral so I had the more convincing arguments. (Pro)
I cited mostly Pew Research studies, official Qur'an verses and hadiths as my sources while my opponent mostly used Wikipedia and news pages to prove (mostly) irrelevant things like "Catholic persecution of women in Ireland". (Pro)

Sources:
[1]: https://sunnah.com...
[2]: https://sunnah.com...
[3]: https://sunnah.com...
[4]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[5]: https://quran.com...
[6]: https://quran.com...
[7]: https://quran.com...
[8]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[12]: http://www.pewforum.org...
[13]: http://reports.weforum.org...
[14]: https://quran.com...
[15]: https://quran.com...
[17]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[18]: https://sunnah.com...
[19]: https://sunnah.com...
[20]: http://www.pewforum.org...
WhyAbhorReality

Con

Opponents quote:
"At no point do I say Islam is not immoral by the human rights values held by majority in the west."
Then you lost the debate because I clearly stated that this is my definition and that you should not accept the debate if you do not agree with the definition. And you even agreed with the definitions "I agree with the rules and the definitions provided."

At no point do I say Islam is not immoral" neither do I say it is moral do I. "However their values do not mean their argument is correct, your values do not speak for everybody." Which, like a vast number of my other arguments were simply ignored and tried to be twisted. If this was a professional debate you would have been disqualified, this isn't the US presidential debates. It isn't about who is more popular.

I accepted the rules given in the debate, and like all rules which are agreed upon by both parties should be held up throughout the debate by both opponents. Rule 2 - Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and or logical fallacies.
My reply to this rule was: "I would like to provide 2 more points of reference in regards to the rules, I don't want us regressing into a debate on fallacy lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org......
https://en.wikipedia.org...;

As is clearly demonstrated in my arguments both of these fallacies are employed by my opponent throughout the debate, and is why I posted these 2 in particular. My opponent has decided that his argument should be picking select parts of mine and twisting it to his own narrative. I would ask my opponent to reassess what a debate is for and how to conduct one properly.

Dangerous rhetoric created by hate groups was clearly explained in both of my arguments, the radicalization done by hate preachers in some certain cultures within Islam is no different than the far right groups who spread hate of Islam, ulterior motives getting both sides to hate each other but obviously you do not realize it when you are the one being manipulated.

I did not at any point say Islam is immoral, so as for not respecting the rules, my opponent is simply using red herrings.
He also seems to believe that he is the judge of this debate by putting in his conclusion that he 'had better conduct' which is for the reader to decide, not him. I think that is very clearly not the case.
"My opponent was not able to rebut all of my arguments and even admitted that Islam is immoral so I had the more convincing arguments. (Pro)" He said this also, despite not arguing any of my points about his whole argument being a fallacy (it's okay to accuse me of fallacy apparently) or that Islam is not one culture or one country or in one group of laws. I also offered more than enough evidence to say why a big list of sources you don't like about Islam is irrelevant. If you only read negative stories why would you think any different?

The argument states:
"Islamic culture and Islam is immoral"

This has been clearly shown to not be true, and completely subjective of the person making the judgement. If the argument was 'Pakistan acid throwing culture is Immoral" it would be different. Instead, my opponent is showing radicalization done by far right rhetoric, populist movements are political creations just the same as groups like ISIS.
I have also mentioned that both sides want the same goal (for everyone to hate Islam) so maybe my opponent needs to be more wary of who he listens to, and why they are pushing the rhetoric they do. I think it more clear that there is immoral undertones to this argument by the accuser.

My opponent used Scripture of the Islamic faith for justification of arguments, yet I have clearly shown that interpretations of the Qur'an are as varied between different Muslim sects as it is in the various Christian sects.
People who argue scripture for justification of the book of Genesis are usually discredited, why is it okay to use other religions scripture for justification against its people? Would you blame the violence in the Bible to yours?

My opponent thinks it is okay for one religion to mistreat women (catholic) due to their religion, but not another. Surely it can be seen that the actions of the Catholic church were considered 'moral' then and now they are not, and that is within one culture. All of my argument shows that all countries improve, all of my opponents argument shows is that conservative thinking in all countries is manipulated very easily when bigots are the ones giving out news.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
I always laugh whenever someone reports a vote when no rfd is required.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
Muslims at work again..again..again..again..Sweden...
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] No RFD is required on this debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
Muslims at work again..again..again..again..Saint Pertersburg....
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
So despite me clearly showing you that you are immoral for throwing this rhetoric around like you do, you just move on and debate someone else. You are meant to learn from debating. Try to narrow down your debates to specific things about cultures then we might have a valid argument to begin with. The actions of the left and right in the US would not be classed as a single culture would it?
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
add 3 more zeroes too lol
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
Math error: its actually 688,000 and 912,000
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
I don't care about who wins the debate so please don't think this is to influence the debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
1.6 billion muslims. Clearly not all of them were surveyed for the 43% statistic to be of any use, but that would mean Sharia supporters would number at 638,000 people. 962,000 people are being judged on sharia law despite them not supporting it. That is why I argue in favor of Islam, not in favor of Sharia Law. If truth be told I would argue against every organised religion.
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
in the mosques* not imams lol
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
I don't mean the religious teachers, but you are right. However different groups all have different understanding of what it means, just like people interpret the bible differently. Some don't believe in the Hdaiths, some don't believe in Mohammed. The Imam's and leaders such as Erdogan have risen to places where they can push particular interpretations. Daesh is like the Mormons suddenly going rogue, some people from other christian religions might start getting tempted by their claims of divinity and join them. It's the same thing. The leaders in the mosques works differently there though and religion is deeply embedded in politics. Like it once was for us, the Vatican made the law for a long time in my culture until the new head of the church was declared as the monarch and a new religion formed, religion is supposedly not involved in politics any more in our culture but you would be a fool to believe that.
If the teachers in the Imams did not belong to groups such as the brotherhood, or taliban or ISIS or any of the other leaders claiming 'the true path' were changed to more leftist muslims (they exist) it would b a whole new world. Kuwait is an example of peaceful leaders and interpretations.
If biblical literalists ruled again we would have major issues as you can imagine. Unfortunately I believe there are many religious literalists in places of wealth and power who like to make wars for money and their beliefs. War with Islam and hating them seems to me to be what they want.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by byaka2013 9 months ago
byaka2013
TopaetWhyAbhorRealityTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: It makes sens
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
TopaetWhyAbhorRealityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30