The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,315 times Debate No: 24634
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

TheHitchslap

Con

Terrorism:
According to google ter�ror�ism
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Synonyms:
terror

1) acceptance
2) arguments
3) arguments/rebuttals
4) rebuttals/ conclusion

No semantics, no voting for own debate, and HAVE FUN!
Clash

Pro

Accepted. I'm looking forward to a great debate and may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First as terrorism as defined before is essentially coercion for political aims, I shall compare various countries and world events as objectively as possible to expose the poor record of Islam on the international stage.

First and probably most recent: The Muhammad Cartoon controversy.
September 30, 2005 A Danish newspaper produced a cartoon of Muhammad for the sake of self-censorship. In other words, to expose Islam for it's suppression of freedom of speech.[1] The results of these publications were vast and violent: from the burning of French, German, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian flags in Palestine, to bombing Danish embassy in Pakistan, to even the burning of Danish embassies in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.[2] My opponent may maintain that this was Islamophobia, or racist. But this is NOT the case in any way shape or form. As noted in Middle Eastern countries, they tend to be very anti-semantic -or posses a profound hatred of Judaism- and have often times themselves have called for violent means against Israel as a Jewish State.[3] Thus in conclusion with this point, a double standard exists here: That Islam reserves the right to continuously slander Jews in the name of freedom of speech, but (even if it is positive or negative) you may not at any point and time make a picture of the prophet Muhammad. The impact of these alone get furthered to show the coercion Islam has placed on everyone. Yale University also banned the images ... not for any threat but for a perceived issue within the future.[4] The coercion didn't just stop there: Danish troops trying to liberate the people of Afghanistan were threatened.[5]
Needless to say, with everything that happened I think it will be seen as a mistake in 50 years. All the bombings, the flag burning, the threats, and the deaths of other Muslims as a result of protests will make them reflect one day and make them say 'boy! We really didn't help our case by claiming were peaceful and pulling s*** like this huh?'
Therefore, it is unequivocal to suggest that this incident was by far a religious one with coercion. The very fundamental freedoms given to the people of Denmark were expected to change as to not offend Muslims through coercion, thus making it also political on the international stage, and thus being terrorism by definition.

Second point: Sympathy for terrorist organizations.
Jordan, Lebanon, and Nigerian Muslims are known for their sympathy to two extremist organizations: Hamas and Hezbollah. Oddly enough though Al-Qaeda is always seen in a negative view for most countries, with only Nigeria having a positive view of them with 49% of the population.[6] Also scary is Lebanon, where hezbollah
leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is threatening violence if a United Nations tribunal indicts Hezbollah members for the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. [7] While Hamas was known for it's bombings of Israel, and defeating the Palestinian Fatah political party through violent means to take control of it's government.[8] Due to Canada, EU, US, Israel, and Japan determining it as a terrorist organization, this is pretty self explanatory. But my opponent will probably claim that these are political parties now, with legitimate para-military wings. Do not be fooled: what party in the US or Canada have a military group to support them? None, and furthermore, they are still very much violent in the hopes of invoking Sharia law upon their respective countries.[9][10] Both so-called parties demonstrate Zionist conspiracy theories within their charters, as Hamas states: "The Protocols of the Elder of Zion," or statements labeling "Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs" as "sabotage groups ... behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds." Some experts and advocacy groups believe that statements by some Hamas leaders display similar conspiratorial influence [11][12]

To conclude: Under the banner of Islam many parties internationally have appeared to preserve their culture. Thats perfectly fine, but in order to preserve there must be violence then this becomes a major problem. Islam wants everyone to be a Muslim, and for politics and religion to go hand in hand. Hence the creation of the Sharia. As in the past, anything that they do not agree with (cartoon's controversy for example, or sympathy to terrorism) is often met with violence to suppress freedom of speech, to coerce the government into apologies, and to impact other countries abroad.

I turn it over to my opponent, and wish him the best of luck.

Source:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] http://www.pewglobal.org...
[7] Ibid
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]Ibid
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] ..../Hamas
[12].../Hezbollah
Clash

Pro

Thank you for your arguments. I will refute them in my next round. What follows now however is my arguments, and I want to note that they will be almost the same as the ones I had in my debate with Microsuck on this same topic, only with some modifications and changes.

In contrast to Con, I will focus on Islam itself and its foundations (i.e., The sayings of prophet Muhammad and the Quran), not some of its followers and their bad actions - which I will now show, is completely against Islam itself and its teachings.

The Sayings of Prophet Muhammad

Let us look at some of the things which prophet Muhammad said:

Do not kill children. Avoid touching people who devote themselves to worship in churches! Never murder women and the elderly. Do not set trees on fire or cut them down. Never destroy houses. (Al-Bukhari)

- This saying of prophet Muhammad gives clear rules to the Muslims as to what they shall not do when they go to war. Indeed, this saying goes completely against terrorism and what terrorists do. Namely, just killing and destroying everything.

A believer continues to guard his Faith (and thus hopes for Allah's Mercy) so long as he does not shed blood unjustly". (Al-Bukhari)

- To shed blood justly is the last thing terrorism and terrorists do. However, this saying of prophet Muhammad condemns the shedding of blood unjustly and thus refuting the myth that Islam is a religion of terrorism.

The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed. (Muslim)

- Another saying of prophet Muhammad which refutes the myth that Islam is a religion of terrorism. What terrorism and terrorists do is making bloodshed. This is what terrorism is. However, as we can clearly see, prophet Muhammad explicitly said that the first cases to be adjudicated between people on the day of judgment will be those of bloodshed.

Those who are kind and considerate to Allah's creatures, Allah bestows His kindness and affection on them. Show kindness to the creatures on the earth so that Allah may be kind to you. (Abu Dawud)

- Surely, being kind is the last thing terrorism and terrorists are to the creatures on this earth. However, as we can clearly see, prophet Muhammad tells us that those who are kind to the creatures on this earth (humans, animals etc), Allah (God) will be kind to them.

The Quran

Let us look at some of the things which the Quran says:

... if someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs, but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Quran: 32)

- Human life is an important right which Islam fully recognises. Murder in Islam is completely prohibited. In fact, as we can see by this verse from the Quran, killing someone - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - is like killing all mankind. And the verse goes on to say that if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind too. This is really an amazing verse.

The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous. (Quran: 42:42)

- The Quran goes further than just prohibiting oppression and safeguarding rights, it also commands the Muslims to deal kindly and justly to all those who have not fought them about their religion and have not driven them out of their homes:

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. God loves just dealers. (Quran: 60:8)

- This verse means that Muslims are to show kindness and deal justly to all those who have not fought them about their religion and have not driven them out of their homes, meaning that a Muslim cannot use terrorism (if we can even go that far) against someone unless he/she are being fought about their religion or driven out of their homes, and it is of course ok to fight or kill if you are being fought about your religion or driven out of your home. So how can you say that Islam is a religion of terrorism?

But as for those who break Allah's contract after it has been agreed and sever what Allah has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode. (Quran: 25)

- I think we all can agree that terrorism and terrorists, no matter who does it and no matter why they do it, cause corruption in the earth when they kill and destroy etc. However, as we can see clearly by this verse, Allah (God) curse those who cause corruption in the earth (i.e., Terrorists etc)

And let not the hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is next to piety; and fear Allah, for Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do. (Quran: 5:8)

- It is very hard to say that Islam is a religion of terrorism after reading this verse. Why? Because, as we can clearly see, the Quran commands the opposite of terrorism. Namely, being just and to not avoid justice.

If they seek peace, then seek you peace and trust in God for He is the Hearer, the Knower. (Quran: 8:61)

- The importance of this verse is that peace is the ultimate goal. Of course, Muslims can fight against those who wants to harm them or cause injustice. However, if they seek peace, then Muslims should also seek peace. Islam insists that its adherents work and incline towards peace. Terrorism has no place in Islam.

Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Quran: 2:193)

- Of course, this verse assumes that Muslims themselves do not and cannot engage in practicing any oppression or injustice. In fact, this verse goes so far as saying that there shall be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

Prophet Muhammad and The Quraysh People

When prophet Muhammad entered the town of Makkah with his huge army, the Quraysh people stood before him expecting him to kill them all. The Quraysh people had previously tortured him and his companions, exiled him and brutally killed his dearest relatives. They basically made a living hell for him. But what did prophet Muhammad do? He forgave almost all of them. Only a few was killed, but those few who were killed really deserved it. This story clearly goes against terrorism. If Islam was a religion of terrorism, you wouldn't expect its founder, prophet Muhammad, to do this amazing thing. You would have expected him to kill them all.

Conclusion

All these sayings of prophet Muhammad and verses from the Quran reveal that acts of terror against innocent people is completely against Islam. It is totally irrational to say that Islam is a religion of terrorism, when its foundations (i,e.,The Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad) clearly speaks against it. And these verses from the Quran and sayings of prophet Muhammad are just some of many others.

I want to finish by quoting this great saying by Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh:

Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.

Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth. [1]

The resolution is affirmed: Islam is not a religion of terrorism

Sources

[1] http://www.cair.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Con

Thank you to pro for his arguments, I hope to refute them with several issues he presents.

Before I continue to debate I shall note a few points a good friend of mine RoyLatham has pointed out to me:
"The question here is whether a religion is defined but what it's followers actually believe, or rather what they ought to believe to be in accord with scripture....All scripture has ambiguity, and clearly Muslims have different interpretations. We must therefore define the religion by what people believe it is."
I would also like to note a few issues with my opponents arguments to the audience; as he is arguing that he shall focus upon the sayings of Muhammad and the Qur'an versus it's followers and their bad actions, this makes my point even more stronger. Allow me to explain: Jean Jaques Rousseau clearly states in the book "The Social Contract and Discourses" Quote: "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole... this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains voters, and receiving from this act its unity, it's common identity, its life, and its will."-Pg 13. In other words the people make the association as to what is mutually agreeable. SO the previous statistics used in my argument are more than valid in showing how Islam as a whole supports terrorism it's self (Hamas and Hezbollah ... but much to the credit of them for some reason dislike Al-Qaeda) and when people like my opponent present a contrariety, they are drowned out by the general will of the masses (or the tyranny of the majority as Rousseau has been criticized). Thus my opponent in a philosophical, political, and historical view -which I will address later in this argument- has failed to defend against my arguments thus far.
Now for the historical view: The Hadith (or the sayings of the Prophet) are in complete contradiction with that of his historical actions. Pro claims: A believer continues to guard his Faith (and thus hopes for Allah's Mercy) so long as he does not shed blood unjustly". (Al-Bukhari) . However despite Muhammad saying this, Muhammad himself has lead over 65 conquering campaigns, 27 of which he lead personally.[1] What is also peculiar is why Christianity and Judaism is mentioned within the Quran, yet nothing is mentioned in the Bible and the Torah. Very simple answer: one source we have upon the persecution of Christians and Jews is the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634 in which states why they thought Muhammad was a false prophet: "deceiving for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed." [2] I would also like to add that is is a primary source by eye witness accounts. In other words, this is one of the most valuable accounts we have of that time period by a person who experienced it. Thus it should not go un-mentioned.

Although I feel I may have already provided enough to make my case to counter all points my opponent has made -either directly or indirectly as I have shown with statistics and historical accounts- I should also mention three things: 1) The interpretations of Muslim scholars to further my case, 2) The Qur'an wants people to join Islam, so in their eyes the 'innocent' is specified to Shiia Muslims and no one else, furthermore, because of this the Qur'an is a biased source to gain followers and thus loses validity, and 3) that this is a debate about terrorism, SO it does NOT require 'bloodshed', coercion is the threat of the use of force, something Muhammad was excellent in doing (threatening to take a life, hostage taking, murder, rape, and any form of physical abuse are all forms of terrorism to force the other party to negotiate).
1) One of the most noted scholars by the name of Yusuf al-Qaradawi has stated anti-Semitic remarks, including support to Adolf Hitler[3] and support for the beating of wives[4]. To quote a few of this mans remarks: "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption...The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them...Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers." Thus proving that for those of whom are not Muslim, you are not innocent in the Hadith and the Qur'an according to this mans interpretations.
2) "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans.If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith." Qur'an�9:3
To further this point I shall add that quote: "The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the�dhimma, the "people of the book."� Specifically , these would be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the�jizya�(tribute to Muslims).� Yet, the word "dhimmi" is derived from an Arabic root that means "guilt" or "blame."� ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy"�Amitav Ghosh, "In an Antique Land"].
"So, if even the�dhimma�have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah's full truth), how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay thejizya�be considered "innocent?"[5]
3) And finally, because of the above verses (point 2 in particular) the mentioning of repent means incentives and turning away represents a 'grievous penalty' which is unspecified, my opponent presents an issue: who is innocent? It is too general to know and due to various Islamic states (Iran or Saddams Iraq anyone?) we know that Sunni and Kruds are highly discriminated against. You are justified to use coercion to spread the faith in Islam, because the Qur'an proclaims it is the only true religion. Thus to a Muslim, the coercion to force someone into Islam is justifiable. So people in the US, minorities, Kurds, and yes even Sunni Muslims are justified to be coerced into believing Islam.
This proves several things in summary:
-Statistically Islam is violent in the Middle East, as the majority believes apostasy should be death, support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Qur'an believes a justified or innocent person is a Muslim only. The rest are subjected to discrimination.
-The Qur'an is biased
-Even scholars agree that Jews should be discriminated against, it spreads hatred with it, and coercion to gain followers.
-The 'general will' of the people drown out the contrariate, this making the actions of 'bad muslims' (as proven is a majority) a representation of Islam valid.
-The prophet Muhammad even contradicted himself with actions and so-called 'Revelations from God' in the Qur'an
-Muhammad was violent, and unjustly so to spread the faith, thus making it terrorism. (He united the Arabian Pennensula under his Rule then Abu after him through military campagins and assassinations)

Thought Experiment: Name me ONE Islamic state with a higher quality of life ranking by a third party organization (i.e freedom index for example) than that of the US or Canada. You won't find one because Islam is based off of coercion.

The resolution is denied, thus I turn it over to my opponent! Good luck!

Source:
[1] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] Ibid
[5] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
Clash

Pro

Before I refute Con's arguments, I would like to make the important note that Con have completely ignored and failed to refute all of my arguments. Until Con even bother to respond to my arguments, I extend them all (i.e., All the verses from the Quran, all the sayings of prophet Muhammad, and the story of prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh people). If I'm going to use my time and energy to respond to Con's arguments, then I expect my opponent to do the same with my arguments.

Con's Arguments

In what follows now, I will refute Con's arguments and show how unsuccessful they are in proving that Islam is a religion of terrorism. I will also refute the arguments which Con gave on his third round.

The Muhammad Cartoon Controversy

Con's argument and logic here is just beyond flawed. Think if, for example, a newspaper one day started to talk very bad about Hinduism. Because of this, some Hindus, say 100 Hindus or 200, got very hurt, angry, and just lost their control. They started to kill those behind this newspaper and started to destroy their places. Now, does this however mean that the religion Hinduism itself justify such things or that Hinduism itself is a religion of terrorism, just because some Hindus got crazy and started to kill people etc? Common sense says no. It is the same with this Muhammad-Cartoon thing. Again, the fact that some Muslims got very angry and started to kill and destroy things (probably because they love prophet Muhammad very much and when they saw those ugly and very incorrect pictures of prophet Muhammad, they just couldn't control their anger), doesn't mean that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism or justifies such violent acts.

Sympathy For Terrorist Organizations

In this argument, Con first said: ”Jordan, Lebanon, and Nigerian Muslims are known for their sympathy to two extremist organizations: Hamas and Hezbollah. Oddly enough though Al-Qaeda is always seen in a negative view for most countries, with only Nigeria having a positive view of them with 49% of the population.

Well, okay? How does that prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism or that Islam itself supports these terrorist and extremist groups?

After saying this, Con basically just started to talk about Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas - and showed us how bad they are. This however doesn't prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism or that Islam itself supports these people and their acts.

The Saying of RoyLatham

Con quoted RoyLatham saying: ”The question here is whether a religion is defined but what it's followers actually believe, or rather what they ought to believe to be in accord with scripture....All scripture has ambiguity, and clearly Muslims have different interpretations. We must therefore define the religion by what people believe it is.

But what makes Con think that this quote proves his case? If anything, it proves my case. Why? Because if we must define the religion by what it's followers actually believe it is, we cannot say that Islam is a religion of terrorism because most Muslims don't believe that Islam is a religion of terrorism. You will find very few Muslims who do.

What Is a Dhimmi?

Con mentioned the Dhimmi. I first want to correct something which Con said on it: ”Yet, the word "dhimmi" is derived from an Arabic root that means "guilt" or "blame.

This is wrong. The word dhimmi is derived from an Arabic root that means dhimmah, which again means pledge or covenant.[1]

Now, what is a Dhimmi? A Dhimmi is basically a non-Muslim who lives under an Islamic state and under its protection. Because he lives under an Islamic state and under its protection, the Dhimmi must pay a small amount of money.
Does this make Islam a religion of terrorism? I don't see how.

Is it justified to use coercion to spread the faith of Islam?

Con said: ”You are justified to use coercion to spread the faith in Islam, because the Qur'an proclaims it is the only true religion.

The Quran however says:

There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Thus, (O' Prophet) if they dispute with thee, say, I have surrendered my whole being unto Allah, and (so have) all who follow me.“ (2: 256)

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (2:256).

Thus, Con's false claim is refuted.

The verse which Con gave from the Quran

Con quoted this verse from the Quran:

"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith." (9:3)

This verse is talking about those Muslims who reject faith (i.e., Apostasy). It is true that Islam teaches that apostates should be killed, and this is not something new. However, does that mean that Islam is a religion of terrorism? If yes, my opponent has to show us how. Basically, how does the promotion of Islam that apostates should be killed, proof that Islam also promotes terrorism or is a religion of terrorism?

Can Jews be discriminated against according to Islam?

Con claimed that the Jews should be discriminated against in Islam. Even if this were true, I cannot however see how that would make Islam a religion of terrorism. If Islam however allowed to kill Jews just because they were Jews, then that would be something else. A religion which discriminate someone wouldn't make it a religion of terrorism. Moreover, the claim that Jews should be discriminated against in Islam is nowhere to be found in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammad. Thus, this claim is nothing more than a failure.

And concerning what Yusuf al-Qaradawi said, this is completely wrong and have no support in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammad. Islam is not anti-Semitic. History, the Quran, and the sayings of prophet Muhammad proves that. I urge everybody to check out this site which nicely refutes the myth that Islam is anti-Semitic.[2]

Conclusion

Since Islam is derived from the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad, it is the responsibility of my opponent to us from the Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Con has however completely failed to do this. Con's arguments are almost only about what some Muslims have done, not about the religion Islam itself. By doing this, Con also completely ignores all the good things which many Muslims have done throughout history. Moreover, Con has given zero evidences to prove that Islam itself supports these bad things which some Muslims and Muslim countries have done. Thus, all of Con's arguments fails.

To say that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism just because of what some Muslims and Muslims countries have done is both unfair and illogical, at least when you can't even prove that Islam itself allows or supports these acts done by these Muslims and Muslims countries. Con gave only one argument from the foundations of Islam itself (i.e., The sayings of prophet Muhammad and the Quran), and that was verse 9:3 of the Quran. However, I clearly refuted that verse. It should also be noted that just 6% of all Muslims are terrorists.[3] This fact alone refutes all the examples of ”Muslim terrorists” which Con have given, who are really just a small minority of all Muslims.

Con's arguments have clearly been refuted and shown to be unsuccessful in proving that Islam is a religion of terrorism. The resolution remains affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://www.khilafah.com...

[2] http://www.onislam.net...

[3] http://www.loonwatch.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Con

My opponent brings up very good questions to ponder with the question of Islam. I must protest his assertion that I did not answer his arguments and thus he may extend them all. He simply cannot, because I answered it with Rousseau's philosophy of the 'general will' and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations. Thus, he did not address any of MY points, and furthermore I would also like to point out that he has failed in naming one Islamic Country with a higher third party organization's rating than that of either Canada or the US. I think that alone is a signal of a won debate. However I shall expand and close the argument so as to prevent further confusion.
The theory of the general will was used to counter my opponents apologist mentalities for Islam. He asserts that you cannot say Islam -as a whole- is terrible just because Muslims do terrible things due to various verses in the Qur'an. I asserted two things within my argument: 1) The Qur'an is too ambiguous, contradicting, vague, or general to assert that the Qur'an is point blanch in being peaceful. For example: "How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon,�Our terror came unto them." Qur'an�7:4 "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to�strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Qur'an�8:57 Or even "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and�cast terror into their hearts.�Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners." Qur'an�33:26 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely." Ishaq:322
2)my last point was simple; lets say -hypothetically- that we have 50 feminists within a room. Upon a vote 49 wish to see men as subordinates, whereas only 1 wants to see men as equals. The general will would dictate that the above example seeks to make men lesser than women regardless of what 1 woman has voted regardless of the feminist manifesto. Same thing with Islam, over 58% of the worlds Muslims (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, et cetera) support Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations.[1] How could they be peaceful when they support violence, death for apostasy, or an Islamic State under Sharia?
Which is more likely, that Islam is peaceful as my opponent has tried to defend, and is thus a minority who does not support terrorism and the majority of Muslims are wrong, OR that my opponent is an apologist, a minority in comparison to the world of Muslims in which says terrorism is wrong? I think you will find the latter is more likely as I have shown than the former. So at this point this leave my opponent in an awkward place, does he continue to take verses from the Qur'an and hadth? OR does he use statistics and real world examples. Well, real world examples favour me and my position not his, thus he must stress how every Muslim does not follow the Qur'an as it is suppose to and that is the fault of people not Islam, something I have clearly disproved thus making his point null and void.
Pro asks the question in regards to the cartoon controversy if Hinduism pulled the same thing (say 100 or 200 of them) would they be justified? Well of those numbers how many would partake in the burning, death, and destruction for agent b's actions? If the vast majority -then yes Hinduism would NOT be peaceful as noted above- if only 200 out of millions then NO the general will drowns out those contrariates. However, if you are trying to make a point about Islam, I say again that because the majority supports these actions, and have overwhelming support of Islam in politics, then yes Islam is a religion of terrorism. They use coercion to suppress the images of the Prophet Muhammad to censor freedom of speech.
On Al-Qaeda, the answer is very simple: Islam is anti-semetic. When Al-Qaeda attacked the US, Islam would have supported someone if they went after Israel. In fact this is in teachings with Muhammad, as in January 624 he no longer faced Israel to pray, he faced Mecca due to an on-going conflict with the Jews (as they didn't wish to see him as a Prophet, SO he killed or banished them!)[2] This was worship by coercion and was thus a Terrorist act. Muhammad wanted centralized power by Uniting the Arab Peninsula. The hatred for the Jews continues even to this day! Furthermore, see above for rest as I have already explained this with the 'general will' argument.
Roys's saying does not support your case. He is saying that in this debate the Qur'an is irrelevant, that the people and their actions make what the religion is (good or bad). Again, due to their support of terrorism this is not the case of being good. Lastly, whom wants to be known as a terrorist? Sure if you ask Bin-Laden he was doing 'Gods Will', yet his goal of coercion for political aims (as agreed upon in first rounds) makes him a terrorist. It's just all a matter of perception because he wanted to see the fall of the US.
The Dhimmi is from the root word of Guilt or blame. Otherwise there would NOT be two words for which it comes from. Furthermore, NO MINORITY has EVER flourished under an Islamic Regime. Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds. In Iran, it's women being oppressed. Afghanistan was much worse: suppression of women and Sunni Muslims. Name me ONE Islamic state with a minority that has increased population and top 20 quality of life rating. You simply won't be able too, as again no minority has ever done well within an Islamic Regime.
My opponent also states that no coercion may be used to gain followers, this is not the case (see quote 2 for Muhammad using coercion upon Jews), and in 627:�Meccan leader Abu Sufyan (c. 567 - c. 655) laid siege to Muhammad's forces in Medina during the battle of the Trench. Even with 10,000 men he was unsuccessful for the 15 days he was there. Muhammad suspected the Banu Quraiza Jews of helping the Meccans and had all the men killed.[3]
Furthermore: "O prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is hell, and an evil destination it is".Qur'an�9:73 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust".Qur'an�5:51 "And fight them until there's no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah".Qur'an�8:39 "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies".Qur'an 8:60
In conclusion yes my opponent is incorrect. Muhammad was anti-Semitic, even slaughtering Jews. (Mecca argument above.) He would even slaughter men whom wrote poems about him.[4] Under Sharia (meaning law in Islamic territories) as my opponent has admitted apostasy is met with death. This is handed out by the Judicial government within these Islamic territories, and is thus a religion of terrorism.Today Islam rules through coercion, threats, and causes suppression of freedom of speech. This is political goals through coercion as I have showed, and also showed the Qur'an and Hadth are too ambiguous to justify Islam not being about terrorism. Thus it is the general will of Muslims we observe to get these conclusions, and as my statistics shshow the general will supports two terrorist organizations. If that is not terrorism I have no clue what is.
Thank you and vote CON :)
Sources:
[1] http://www.pewglobal.org...
[2] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com...
[3] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com...
[4] http://wikiislam.net...
Clash

Pro

Thank you. It has been a pleasure to have this debate with you.

Have Con refuted my arguments?

Absolutely not. Con has not answered even one of my arguments. Con however claims that he has refuted them "with Rousseau's philosophy of the 'general will' and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations."

In regards to Rousseau's philosophy of the "general will", this is just a philosophical view which has little to do with my arguments. You can read more about this philosophical view and see by yourself that it doesn't in any way refute my arguments on this site.[1] And in regards to the statistics posted in round 2 by Con about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations, this has also very little to do with my arguments and doesn't in any way disprove them. And again, just because some Muslim countries support some terrorist organizations, that doesn't mean or prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism or that Islam itself supports these terrorist organizations.

Con's claim that he has refuted all of my arguments with Rousseau's philosophy of the general will and the statistics posted in round 2 about Islamic countries and their support for terrorist organizations, is just beyond laughable. This is really just an excuse for not answering my arguments. Extend all my arguments again.

Correcting some of Con's verses from the Quran

Con gave some verses from the Quran. Because of the character limit, I'm not able to answer all the verses which Con gave. However, let's look at some of them:

7:4

This verse is only talking about those places which God destroyed because they disobeyed Him even after being warned many times. And it doesn't say that our terror came unto them. This is an very big misinterpreting of this verse made by Con.

8:57

Another verse which have been completely misinterpreted by Con. This is what this verse really says: "So if you, [O Muhammad], gain dominance over them in war, disperse by [means of] them those behind them that perhaps they will be reminded." Is this terrorism? I don't see how.

33:26

This verse is talking about a Jewish tribe which purposefully broke an agreement between them and prophet Muhammad, and even attacked the Muslims.[2] Some of the Jews in this tribe even instigated the pagan Qureshis into waging a war against Prophet Muhammad.[2] For the safety of the Muslims, prophet Muhammad fought and killed them. In summary, all this was this Jewish tribe's fault and prophet Muhammad had no other choice.

Regarding what Roylatham said

Con said: "Roys's saying does not support your case. He is saying that in this debate the Qur'an is irrelevant, that the people and their actions make what the religion is (good or bad)."

What Con quoted Roylatham really saying in his third round is that we must define the religion by what it's followers actually believe. So yes, this proves my case because most Muslims don't believe that Islam is a religion of terrorism. Moreover, I strongly disagree that the Quran is irrelevant. This debate is about if Islam is a religion of terrorism. Thus, the Quran (which is the highest authority in Islam) is quite relevant.

Supporting Terrorism

Con's claim that over 58% of the worlds Muslims supports Hamas and Hezbollah is a lie and cannot be found anywhere on that site which Con referenced this claim to (read that site yourself). And even if it was true that over 58% of the worlds Muslims supports Hamas and Hezbollah (and it's not), that would still not mean or prove that Islam itself supports them or is a religion of terrorism.

Con also said: "How could they be peaceful when they support violence, death for apostasy, or an Islamic State under Sharia?"

In regards to Islam allowing apostasy, Con have failed to show us why that would make Islam a religion of terrorism. In regards to supporting an Islamic state under Sharia, Con have failed to show us why that would make Islam a religion of terrorism. In regards to supporting violence, who is doing that?

The Muhammad cartoon thing

Con's claim that the majority supports these actions (i.e., The actions of those Muslims who began to kill and destroy things because of the Muhammad cartoon thing) is a claim without any evidences or sources whatsoever to back it up with. Con is simply just claiming that the majority supports these actions. This argument fails.

Using coercion to gain followers

Con continues to claim that Muslims can use coercion to gain followers. This claim however has no support in the Quran or in the sayings of prophet Muhammad. In fact, the Quran explicitly says that there shall be no coercion in matters of faith (2: 256). This fact alone completely refutes Con's false claim. Moreover, Muslims have been instructed to gain followers into Islam in the most respectful and kind manner:

"Call thou (all mankind) unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner." (16:125) Using coercion to gain followers is strictly prohibited.

Con's fallacy in judging Islam according to some of its followers

Con's arguments are almost only from what some Muslims have done. This however doesn't prove that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism. This debate is about if Islam (the religion) is a religion of terrorism. Thus, giving some examples of some "Muslim terrorists" is a failure.

And again, by doing this Con also completely ignores all the good things which many Muslims have done throughout history. I could also, if I wanted to play Con's game, give several examples of good things which Muslims have done throughout history and which goes against the idea of terrorism. However, this debate is not about what the followers of Islam does, but about Islam itself. And as I have shown in my argument round, Islam itself is completely against these "Muslim terrorists" and their terrorist acts. It should also be noted all these examples of "Muslim terrorists" which Con have given, are Muslims of a very small minority. In fact, just 6% of all Muslims are terrorists.[3]

We must also ask if Muslims support terrorism? The answer is a clear no. Most Muslims don't agree with these "Muslim terrorists" and their terrorist acts. You can find several Muslim scholars speaking against terrorism on this site.[4] In fact, 20,000 Muslim scholars have declared terrorism as un-Islamic.[5] Also, Terror Free Tomorrow found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.[6] These are the real statistics, not like those biased statistics which Con have given and which are given us only the one side of the real truth.

Moreover, Con have failed to 1) Prove that Islam itself allows or supports these terrorist acts done by these Muslims, and 2) Prove that the motives of these "Muslim terrorists" is in fact Islam itself, and not something else like politics or because their country was attacked and they therefore wanted to take revenge (In fact, two thirds of "Muslim suicide bombers" have been from countries where US forces have or are still maintaining military forces.[7]). Thus, Con's arguments are invalid. And as for those terrorists who base their actions on Islam - those people misappropriate Islam, as terrorist anti-abortionists, white supremacists, and certain militia groups misappropriate Christianity.

Conclusion

Con's arguments have clearly been refuted and shown to be unsuccessful in proving that Islam is a religion of terrorism. My arguments on the other hand - which clearly shows from the foundations of Islam and from what Islam itself is derived from (i.e., The Quran and the sayings of prophet Muhammad) that Islam is not a religion of terrorism - stands completely unrefuted and unresponded. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote Pro.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Don't phrase the resolution in the negative and then make a case as Con. That's massively confusing. Be Pro, and resolve that Islam is a religion of terrorism.

Doublespace between paragraphs. Again, stop using the word "whom" until you either know what it means or are quoting John Donne.

I thought Hitch started well, much stronger than Clash. But, by the end, Clash had muddied things up, and Hitch hadn't clarified. Hitch should have run with Clash's claim that 6% of Muslims are terrorists. Clash should have stressed that not all violence is terrorism. (Sometimes, you're just trying to kill somebody, not scare him. If all violence counts as terrorism, then the USA is the world's premier terrorist nation. [Which, I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just articulating a line Clash could have used.]) Hitch should have explained how killing apostates has a chilling effect on religious freedom: It terrifies people into pretending they are still Muslim. Honor killings. The strong social support Muslims had for the rioters after the cartoons of Muhammad.

Ultimately, after Clash's arguments, Hitch needed to show that Islam tends to cause terrorism. Something like: 6% of Muslims are terrorists, but only .001 percent of Christians are terrorists. Or, would you feel safer taking a cartoon of Buddha into an Buddist church, or a cartoon of Muhammad into a Muslim church?

Clash did well to point out that Muslims have non-religion-based grievances against Israel.

Both sides had grammar problems, but Hitch was definitely harder to read because of his.

Hitch argued first, taking a positive stance. He was effectively Pro. He had the burden of proof. He made a prima facie case, but Clash did well enough that, by the end, Hitch had not prevailed.

I saw a Muslim complain that he was oppressed in America. When asked specifically how he was oppressed, he said complained that he isn't allowed to kill homosexuals.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
My RFD:

Pro seemed to use isolated incidents of Muslims doing acts of violence and terrorism, but the BoP was on pro and he had to prove that Islam in general is a religion of terrorism. Isolated incidents cannot prove a generalization. He's basically picking a needle out of the haystack and comparing the needle to the haystack.

In addition to this, pro never made a sweeping generalization argument, no Quran'ic or Sharia arguments, and certainly no argument that could have proved his side. So pro never proved BoP.

Finally, sources because the website "Religion of peace" is as biased as a Liberal think tank in a politics debate.

Nice arguments by both sides. A very good debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
TheHitchslapClashTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
TheHitchslapClashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to effectively answer Clash's argument from Quran and Hadith. Con's arguments depend on huge generalizations and his own prejudices about Muslims.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
TheHitchslapClashTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
TheHitchslapClashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources, Conduct, and S/G were all just about equal, so I'll focus on the arguments. What it all boiled down to was the Con pointing out what certain fanatics did, and Pro pointing out what is said in the actual religion. Thus, while Con was using various incidents in an attempt to attack a religion, Pro was in fact using the religion itself. In doing so, he showed that the actual RELIGION of Islam (not some of the prophets like Bin Laden) is not a religion of terrorism, and fulfilled his BoP.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
TheHitchslapClashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No conduct violations, hence conduct is tied. S/G was good for all as well. Sources roughly equal. In the end the reason why I voted Pro for arguments because I feel Con needed to show more evidence from the Quran that justified terrorism than he did. Pro made a solid case against terrorism using the Quran, and I felt that although RoyLatham's quote was relevant, Con should have provided a better argument based on the Quran for terrorism to make full use of it. Good debate.