The Instigator
InsertNameHere
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

The Qur'an openly preaches violence and hatred against non-believers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+12
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 11 votes the winner is...
InsertNameHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,150 times Debate No: 12298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (154)
Votes (11)

 

InsertNameHere

Pro

My opponent, Mirza has offered to discuss a controversial subject regarding the Qur'an, that it openly preaches violence and hatred as this has been bothering me for some time now. While I'm aware that much of it is likely misinterpretations it's still an important issue worth addressing. One can't help, but to wonder why there's so much bloodshed done in the name of the "religion of peace". I hope for an interesting and informative debate. Good luck to both of us!

I will begin by presenting some Qur'anic verses that speak of violence and providing a short explanation. Also, if my opponent wins this debate and proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Qur'an isn't violent then I'll return to being a muslim on no conditions.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.--2:17-18 - According to this verse, non-believers are diseased and should suffer a painful doom.

Ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!--2:65 - Allah turned unbelievers into apes.

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.--2:89 - Allah curses non-believers.

Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out ... If they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.--2:191 - Allah says to kill non-believers. While this could be interpreted as self-defense it's likely that this verse and others have been used to justify the attacks against non-believers in various countries.

Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah--2:193 - This could mean killing ALL the non-believers as they'll oppose Islam. They couldn't if they were all dead.

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve--3:151 - Allah calls for using fear tactics against the non-believers, this could be interpreted as terrorism like we see so much of in the world today.

The disbelievers are an open enemy to you.--4:101 - Non-believers are the enemy, self-explanatory.

Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?--4:144 - Allah says that believers can only befriend other believers.

The Children of Israel ... We have cursed them and made hard their hearts--5:12-13 - This seems to be Anti-Semitism as "Children of Israel" often refers to the Jews.

Christians ... We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection.--5:14 - Hatred against Christians.

The Jews ... We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection.--5:64 - More hatred against Jews.

I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.--8:12 - Cut the fingers and behead the non-believers.

When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them ... hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell.--8:15-16 - Don't surrender to non-believers in battle.

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.--9:5 - Kill the non-belivers.

Those who disbelieve ... will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.--98:6 - Believers are superior to non-believers.

All these and other verses can be used to demonstrate the extreme intolerance and lust for violence of Allah. I await my opponent's response. :)
Mirza

Con

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. I hope that my responses will be clear, and that they will remove a very common misconception about the Qur'an today.

[Qur'an 109, Al-Kafiroon, The Disbelievers] "Say: O disbelievers! (2)I worship not that which ye worship; (3)Nor worship ye that which I worship. (4)And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (5)Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (6)Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."

-- Rebuttals --

" In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves)."

This is from the Qur'an, chapter 2, verse 10, not verses 17-18, as my opponent stated for some reason. If you look at the context, you will see that this verse speaks about hypocrites.

[Qur'an 2:8] "Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe."

The disease in their hearts is hypocrisy, and unless they wish to cure it, God will let it rise for them so they can be punished for their sins because they never wished to cure such a great disease.

[Qur'an 2:65] "And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected.'"

This speaks about Israelites who transgressed on Sabbath/Saturday. Instead of resting and worshiping during that day, and leaving cooking etc., many openly started trading and doing other such things on a day that is prescribed as a day of rest, and due to that God punished them by turning them into apes. This was a warning for other people.

[Qur'an 2:89] "And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."

This verse speaks of a historical context of people who believed in earlier scriptures. Those were Jews. They awaited a Prophet that was predicted by their own Prophets, but when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came with a clear message from God, many of them refused to recognize him as a Prophet, and God cursed such people.

The next verses (my opponent quoted verses 2:191 and 2:193) speak about war. I will analyse them.

[Qur'an 2:190] "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

Already in this verse, God mentions fighting in His name, but He mentions it in such a peaceful way that is not to be misunderstood at all: Fight in Allah's cause those who fight you, and do not transgress limits.

Which person will tell me that this verse is to be misunderstood, and that the misunderstanding can be related to the verse itself? Is the verse not as clear as the sun on the rule of fighting? Fight the attackers. Also, what is meant by "do not transgress limits?"

[Book 019, Hadith Number 4319, Chapter: Prohibition of killing women and children in war.]

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children."

There are many similar statements found in authentic hadith. The beloved Prophet forbade killing such innocent people even during wartime. When a terrorist blows himself up, which is a major sin, destroys other people's property, kills numerous innocent people, including disabled, children, etc., then which verse of the Qur'an or saying of the Prophet can he ever use to justify his horrible action? Is this really correlated with the words of the Prophet saying that innocent people are to be protected?

[Qur'an 2:191] "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."

Fight in self-defence, as already explained. Unfortunately, I do not see verse 190 from my opponent, explaining what fighting is for, nor verse 192.

[Qur'an 2:192] "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

If they wish peace, God is forgiving, and Muslims must, of course, accept peace.

[Qur'an 2:193] "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."

In the next verse, God says to fight them until there is no more oppression. It is clear that the enemies were the oppressors, so why would a Muslim read this and think of oppressing, instead of fighting oppression? Also, the verse was not quoted fully, but I have done it. As can be read, when the enemy offers peace, there must be no fighting excepts against oppressors. And these are historical verses, and still today, they explain fighting in self-defence, not oppression.

[Qur'an 3:151] "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!"

My opponent said, "Allah calls for using fear tactics against the non-believers, this could be interpreted as terrorism like we see so much of in the world today."

Firstly, the word "terror" means terrible agony, or something similar. The word "terrorism" did not exist before the French Revolution, centuries after the Qur'an was revealed. So, how can the word "terrorism" be read in Arabic when reading the Qur'an? Secondly, Allah simply says that God will cast "fear" or "terrible agony" in the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they commit crimes in the sight of God. At the Day of Judgement, Muslims will be happy, being led to Paradise, and the disbelievers will be sad, going to punishment due to their evil actions. So, an Arab Muslim can impossibly think of terrorism when reading this in Arabic, and that is certainly what a "fundamentalist" Muslim would do.

For [Qur'an 4:101], due to lack of time and character space, please see source #1. I have explained it there.

[Qur'an 4:144] "O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?"

First off, I will say that the beloved Prophet had non-Muslim friends. Secondly, I will explain what the real meaning is. The same is mention in other verses.

[Qur'an 60:13] "O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves."

The word used there derives from "awliya," which can mean friend. "Tatawallu" is the word used in the verse above. What this word means is "guardian," or more correctly, ally. The Qur'an does not speak about friendship with non-Muslims, but alliances. It prohibits such things, because the non-Muslim "allies" can turn into Muslims' enemies, and attack them in a more vulnerable way. Other verses mention a word meaning something very tight, so Muslims should not take non-Muslims as extremely close friends, telling them every single thing.

I will explain other verses in the next round, due to lack of character. My opponent can refute my claims if she wills, or let me continue with the rest. I thank her very much.

-- References --

[1]http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
InsertNameHere

Pro

I thank my opponent for an interesting start to this debate. I will begin this round by briefly refuting some of my opponent's claims.

First, going back to verse 2:8 and assuming God is all-powerful and merciful wouldn't he try to help guide non-believers towards faith rather than using scare tactics about hell against them and stating that he will raise the "disease" of non-belief? This gives off an impression of a vengeful God rather than a merciful one. I would much rather worship a merciful God.

Secondly, my opponent addresses Qur'anic verses regarding Jews. Verse 2:65 talks about Jews being transformed into apes for trangressing the Sabbath. This and some other similar verses(4:47, 4:160, 5:41, 5:51, 5:64, 3:110, 9:29) all preach hatred towards Jews. Taking the Qur'an as the perfect word of God, Muslims are also influenced by these verses to be Anti-Semitic.
http://www.wikiislam.com...
Even 90% of Middle Easterners alone view Jews unfavourably.
http://www.jpost.com...

Thirdly, my opponent addresses war as stated in the Qur'an. While my opponent claims the Qur'an preaches to go to war strictly in self-defense this hasn't always been the case. Wars have often been waged in order to convert people to Islam. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i(http://en.wikipedia.org...) is an example of one such muslim leader who permitted offensive war. Even many modern scholars permit offensive war. http://www.islamonline.net...

Also, another important issue is terrorism. Although not all muslims support acts of terror the numbers of those who do are fairly high and should be of concern. http://pewresearch.org... Is this due to misinterpretations perhaps? It seems unlikely that this many people would misinterpret the Qur'an.

Finally, my opponent mentions friendships with Non-muslims and argues that muslims shouldn't completely trust non-muslims and become close friends with them. Wasn't Islam supposed to be a religion that is tolerant of other faiths? Christians can have non-christian friends, Jews can have non-jewish friends, etc. and more often do you not see these non-believers turning against their friends who belong to different religious groups.

Lastly, I will like to address some issues that are not mentioned by my opponent. Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities of Islam. Both are blocked off to non-muslims. Holy sites of other religions such as the Vatican allow visitors of all faiths. If Islam was tolerant wouldn't they want to allow non-muslims into these two cities as long as they're respectful? In fact, many visitors could benefit from visiting these two cities. They could be educated about Islam while having a cultural experience.

I will also like to address the issue of the construction of non-islamic places of worship in islamic countries. While non-muslim countries openly allow the construction of mosques, many islamic countries make it much harder to construct churches or temples. Again, why would a tolerant religion disallow this?

Thank you. That is all for now. Now to my opponent...
Mirza

Con

Thank you for the quick response.

-- Content --

Rebuttals:

• 1. Previous Round
o 5:12-13
o 5:14
o 5:64
o 8:12
o 8:15-16
o 9:5
o 98:6

• 2. Current Round[*]

o Increase in Disease?
o Verses Preaching Hatred Toward Jews?
o Middle Easterners View Jews 'Unfavourably'
o Wars in the Name of Islam
o Modern Scholars and Offensive War
o Terrorism - Misinterpretation or Bad Mental State?
o Friendship
o Mecca and Medina for Muslims Only
o Houses of Worship in Islamic Countries

-- Rebuttals --

• 1. Previous Round
o 5:12-13

Let me first make it clear that if I say that I am against evil Americans, then it does not mean that I am against all Americans. Now, these verses, namely 12-13, speak about Children of Israel breaching a covenant. God, then, hardened their hearts. This can mean that they felt a terrible agony, or anything similar, due to their bad deeds. However, I think everybody should lead the last sentence of verse 13:

[Qur'an 5:13] "But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind."

This is not "anti-Semitism." This is punishment for people who did bad deeds. Even if you are a Muslim, you can get punished for bad deeds.

o 5:14

The verse right after speaks about God implementing hatred between Christians until the Day of Judgement, as a result of their forgetfulness of a message that was revealed unto them. They started becoming idolaters, worshiping statues, and called a man the son of God, and God Himself. This is something God deals with Himself. The verse does not say that Muslims should hate Christians. It says that they themselves will look badly at each other, as history shows. They became split, their beliefs were fully corrupt due to different versions of scriptures, and so forth. Many of them hate each other for that. But there is no command on "hatred against Christians," as my opponent stated.

o 5:64

[Qur'an 5:63] "Why do not the rabbis and the doctors of Law forbid them from their (habit of) uttering sinful words and eating things forbidden? Evil indeed are their works."

In this verse, it is asked why the rabbis and priests do not forbid their followers from uttering disrespectful words. A few years ago, the current Pope of Vatican uttered falsehood against the beloved Prophet, asking to show what he brought that was new and good, and not evil. He was challenged for some dialogues on this, but refused. Such people have hatred in their hearts, and they utter falsehood against God and His Messenger.

[Qur'an 5:64] "The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief."

As seen, when Jews speak disrespectfully about Allah, He responds by by saying that even among themselves, there is hatred. Allah helps Muslims in a way that instead of letting the entire world turn against them, namely Muslims against Christians, Jews, etc., Allah weakens them by leeting there be enemies from within their own groups. As seen in the last sentence, many Jews etc. strive to do mischief on earth and wage war, and God does not love those who do such things, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. This is, again, not anti-Semitic or hatred against non-Muslims, but a clear message to mankind about evil deeds and punishment for that.

o 8:12

Let me first say that the Qur'an has verses that were revealed in a historical event, and they only speak about those events.

[Qur'an 8:12] "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'"

My opponent said, "Cut the fingers and behead the non-believers." I must say that this is absolutely not true. These verses speak about Battle of Badr. As can be seen, it was a battle. Why did the Qur'an tell to smite the necks of the non-Muslims, during battle? Firstly, it is a normal command that a general would also give. Second, can anyone name a tank that existed back then, or a bombing plane? Should the Qur'an have said to bomb them? "Fire?" No. Why not? Because back then, 14 centuries ago, swords were used. And what was the most effective way of dealing with enemies? It was by cutting the necks, which would result in instant death. Today, it looks "barbaric." But, watch any war movie, and see if it is - at minimum - just as barbaric when a general says, "Fire with tanks" and we see some humans being blown up. Is it not the same? Yes, it is. The only reason why "smiting necks" was a command then was against non-believers in Battle of Badr, not a normal day when going to cinema, and because it was a normal and effective fighting method.

o 8:15-16

My opponent claimed that these verses say "do not surrender to the disbelievers." I fully agree with her. Defeatism was never Islamic, nor will it ever be. Muslims were oppressed during the revelation of the Qur'an, and what good would there be had they given up in battles? If a commander tells his soldier to turn back, it is fine. However, no soldier must show cowardice and flee from battle and forsake the other soldiers. But defeatism, this concept is not Islamic.

o 9:5

As I said above, many verses of the Qur'an speak of historical events. Chapter 9 starts by speaking of a treaty between Muslims and Pagans.[1] due to character limits, I will explain shortly. If you read the first verses, you will see that they speak about a treaty between Muslims and Pagans. Instead of the Pagans accepting this with the Muslims, an agreement of peace, they did not. This was a declaration of war. So, verse five says to fight them. If France declares war on Germany today, should Germany not prepare for war? Yes. Similarly, that was the case with Muslims and Pagans in this event. Now, let us look at the next verse.

[Qur'an 9:5] "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

The Qur'an promotes love and kinship even during such bad times. It told Muslims to provide safety for any Pagan who wished to be in peace. If every Pagan was to be slain, why would this verse be there, right after verse five? And the Qur'an speaks about those Pagans who refused to accept peace.

[Qur'an 9:10] "n a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds."

And once more, crystal clear, fighting against aggressors.

[Qur'an 9:13] "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!"

o 98:6

I got limited character space, and will comment on this verse in the next round.

-- References --

[1]The Qur'an, Chapter 9, http://www.usc.edu...

[*] To be continued in next round. I ask my opponent to allow me some room for full rebuttals. I thank her in advance.
Debate Round No. 2
InsertNameHere

Pro

Thank you for the interesting explanations. My opponent and I have both agreed that I will wait until next round to post any other points in order to give him more space to refute the remainder of the existing arguments.
Mirza

Con

I want to start by thanking my opponent for being exceptionally kind and letting me present full rebuttals to her arguments. I hope that they will be of good quality!

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

o Increase in Disease?
o Verses Preaching Hatred Toward Jews?
o Middle Easterners View Jews 'Unfavourably'
o Wars in the Name of Islam
o Modern Scholars and Offensive War
o Terrorism - Misinterpretation or Bad Mental State?
o Friendship
o Mecca and Medina for Muslims Only
o Houses of Worship in Islamic Countries

-- Rebuttals --

o Increase in Disease?

Jannah (my opponent) asked why God does not help guiding non-believers toward faith rather than use scare tactics. Firstly, He does. However, God says:

[Qur'an 13:11] "Allah does not change a people's lot unless they change what is in their hearts."

God guides people, but if they wish to remain hypocrites, then God lets them be free agents. It is not God who wrongs by letting them do what they want. It is they themselves. God forgives people even if their sins are as great as mountains, but they have to ask God for forgiveness, and they have to work on their negative sides and ask God for help. Hypocrites are the ones who should change themselves and ask God for forgiveness, and He will be there for them.

Also, it is the same as if a child was crying for a hamburger. If he kept crying for it, and his mother kept telling him to stop crying and she would give it to him, but not if he keeps crying, then she will not give it to him unless he stops crying. If he stops crying, she will give it. Similarly, God lets hypocrites be what they are, so unless they stop fooling themselves, God will just let them be what they are. If they wish to change, God will help. It is they who are the ones that are wronging.

o Verses Preaching Hatred Toward Jews?

My dear opponent says that God transformed some Jews into apes. Yes, but as I said, even Muslims can get punished. She mentioned some verses mentioning Jews in a way that God is displeased with them. There are certain things that only apply to God only. Yes, God does not like those who do bad deeds, such as worshipping false gods. But, that is something God will deal with. It does not urge Muslims to do anything about it, but to spread the true message of God.

Chapter 109 speaks about freedom of religion.[1]

o Middle Easterners View Jews 'Unfavourably'

Jannah said that 90% of Middle Easterners view Jews unfavourably. I do not know how sound that statistic is, but that is nevertheless easy to explain. When people grow up in the area of Middle East, they hear about Israel bombing Muslims, Jews being Zionists, etc., so naturally, they feel bad about many Jews. If you go to the Balkans, you will see 90% of such-and-such people viewing such-and-such people unfavourably. Bosnians may view Serbians unfavourably, etc., because they went to war, there are political problems, and so forth.

o Wars in the Name of Islam

My opponent claimed that there have been wars fought in the name of Islam. This is not a debate about history, and while I can present lots of arguments in the defence of Islam, I will say that there have been wars for numerous religions, beliefs, etc. Also, when 'Muslims' fight political wars, they may say 'for Islam' or 'Allahu Akbar' simply because Muslims do that in battles, even though they may fight purely political wars.

o Modern Scholars and Offensive War

Jannah claimed that some modern scholars interpret 'Jihad' meaning 'offensive war', something Muslims should lead against non-Muslims. Firstly, 'Jihad' is not Holy War. Jihad means 'struggle' or 'strive', i.e. struggle and strive to wake up every morning to prayer, defend your people against oppressors, etc. Holy War is not found in the Qur'an, and the Arabic word is Harb ul-Muqadasa.

Now, there may be some scholars saying that Jihad must be offensive, Muslims must fight etc., but those are highly misguided. Almost all Muslim scholars and orators say that Muslims must not be oppressors. If they are under threat, if enemies break peace treaties, if they are directly oppressed, this is something different. The Qur'an prohibits leading offensive wars and forced conversions very strictly. First, please look at source #2. A picture shows very famous Muslim orators of these days, and I have never heard any of them promote offensive war. In fact, Dr. Zakir Naik gave a great lecture about Islam and Terrorism, which can be watched on YouTube.

[Qur'an 10:99] "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!"

o Terrorism - Misinterpretation or Bad Mental State?

Jannah said that terrorism by Muslims may be rooted in misinterpretation of the Qur'an. I say it is generally due to bad mental states of people. Many psychologists will say this. Why? A child in Afghanistan, born in the year 2002, has grown up seeing non-Muslim forces every day, hearing about them killing innocent people on many occasions, occupying their land, stealing their resources, taking their freedom, and so forth. Can this not be a great cause to their bad mental states, which can lead them to becoming so-called 'terrorists'? I say yes. Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., all those areas are invaded, attacked, etc., so of course some people will be totally harmed and perhaps blow themselves up. Maybe they use religion as a hope for a better life in the Hereafter, instead of just losing everything by blowing themselves up. This is related to psychology, not verses of the Qur'an.

o Friendship

Now, Jannah said something about tolerance. Why are Muslims not allowed to 'fully' trust non-Muslims? I say that it is not only about 'trust'. It can be many things. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that a person will follow the belief of his close friend, so he should be careful about who he befriends. Imagine a Muslim being very good friends with an Atheist. He might tell the Atheist everything, and feel confident about him. Then the Atheist can speak about how bad religion is, or anything similar, and lead the Muslim astray, because the Muslim felt 'confident' in the Atheist. So, would it not have been better if the Muslim stayed a bit away, yet remained friends? Yes, indeed. It is not because Islam wants to demote tolerance. It promotes it, but it also protects the Muslim individual by guiding him. I have non-Muslim friends, and I can notice some bad feelings about my religion sometimes. This way, my Faith can weaken, but of course, I am careful.

o Mecca and Medina for Muslims Only

Why are Mecca and Medina for Muslims only? These are protected cities. Muslims are only allowed to enter them. Every day, Muslims face Mecca when they pray, and this is very holy for us. Thee are lots of other places non-Muslims can go to in order to learn about Islam. I understand that it my seem 'intolerant', but it is not. The Vatican may allow non-Christians to enter the Holy See, but not every single office. Similarly, we Muslims let non-Muslims in mosques etc., but not two locations in Saudi Arabia, because they are very holy.

o Houses of Worship in Islamic Countries

Islam allows religious freedom. Non-Muslims have their communities etc., and are excluded from religious obligations. They are protected by Muslims, and Muslims are not allowed to insult them or harm them.

[Qur'an 8:61] "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

[Qur'an 60:8] "Allah does not forbid you to treat kindly and deal justly those who have neither fought you in the matter of religion, nor driven you out of your homes. Indeed Allah loves the just."

-- References --

[1]http://www.usc.edu...
[2]http://irf.net...
Debate Round No. 3
InsertNameHere

Pro

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. These arguments have been nearly impossible to refute so I will try my best.

First off, my opponent mentions that terrorism is a result of a bad mental state. However, in non-islamic countries you also have people in bad mental states and I don't think I have ever heard of a christian suicide bomber. While I am aware there are non-islamic terrorists(Lord's Resistance Army, Tamil Tigers, and Shining Path to name a few. http://www.strategypage.com...) they don't blow themselves up in hope of obtaining physical pleasure in paradise. It could possibly be more than mental illness that causes these people to blow themselves up. Even in the poorest non-islamic countries in Africa terrorists don't blow themselves up. Why is this exclusively an islamic thing? The Qur'an or Hadith perhaps?

Secondly, I will like to address my opponent's point about the Vatican. It is true that most people can't enter the inner offices of the Vatican. However, non-christians can still enter the Vatican. Non-muslims cannot enter Mecca or Medina at all so the Vatican is still more tolerant. He states that these two cities in Saudi Arabia are very holy, but so is the Pope to Catholics since he is their main figurehead.

Thirdly, my opponent fails to provide a proper explanation as to why there's very few churches or temples in most islamic countries while there being many mosques in non-islamic countries. I do realize that this could be a result of demographics. Most islamic countries are almost entirely muslim while many non-islamic countries are a mix. This leads to another interesting factor though. Could that be a result of non-muslims not feeling comfortable living in islamic countries?

I look forward to my opponent's responses. :) Good luck!
Mirza

Con

Mirza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
154 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Roy, there was a sort of mistake when I was about to post my last argument. Jannah accepts this.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Scripture allows infinite rationalizing one way or the other. Everything is in one context or another, only applies in some circumstances or is universal, is metaphorical or literal, is still true or must be interpreted for modern times. Consequently, what scripture really says is far less important than the current belief of what it says. I judged arguments to be a tie: like the Bible, the Qur'an can mean whatever you want it to. If I had to pick one side I'd give arguments to Pro, because hypocrites and Jews were portrayed as *justly* receiving absurdly violent punishments. The Old Testament has the same type of problem.

Con forfeited the last round, and Pro clearly did not expect that. That is a conduct violation. I didn't read through the comments about why Con got two rounds to reply to one round from Pro, but that should not have happened. Debates should be confined to equal space.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Scripture allows infinite rationalizing one way or the other. Everything is in one context or another, only applies in some circumstances or is universal, is metaphorical or literal, is still true or must be interpreted for modern times. Consequently, what scripture really says is far less important than the current belief of what it says. I judged arguments to be a tie: like the Bible, the Qur'an can mean whatever you want it to. If I had to pick one side I'd give arguments to Pro, because hypocrites and Jews were portrayed as *justly* receiving absurdly violent punishments. The Old Testament has the same type of problem.

Con forfeited the last round, and Pro clearly did not expect that. That is a conduct violation. I didn't read through the comments about why Con got two rounds to reply to one round from Pro, but that should not have happened. Debates should be confined to equal space.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Come on, more people need to vote to break this tie!
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
(Copy-pasted from previous page)

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
o Few Churches in Islamic Nations
o Non-Muslims in Islamic Nations

-- Rebuttals --

Paragraph 1

My opponent stated that even though there are non-Muslim terrorists/people, she has never heard of any of them blow up. I am glad to say that this is not true. Before we ever heard of Muslim suicide bombers, there were already some from Japan.[1] Kamikaze.

Furthermore, my opponent asked if the Qur'an or hadith are making Muslims 'exclusive' suicide bombers. As proved above, they were neither the first nor only to be suicide bombers. Moreover, how can messages that are 14 centuries old speak about suicide bombing? This is not logical. Also, we do not know how true these claims are. Saying that some people blew themselves up is easy. This way, no evidence is needed etc. Something has been blown up, there is blood, and that is it. No examination of the body of a 'suicide bomber' at all. Maybe a car bomb?

Paragraph 2

Regarding Vatican etc., it is 'holy', but it is not of the same importance like Mecca and Medina. Those cities are there to protect Muslims. There is something about future events where Muslims will seek protection in those cities, so it is a theological argument to a great extent. Also, as I said, Mecca and Medina are two cities, and you can literally learn everything about Islam and Muslim culture without going to those cities.

Paragraph 3
o Few Churches in Islamic Nations

The reason why there are few churches in Islamic nations is apparently because there are not many non-Muslims in them. Saudi Arabia is 99% Muslim, etc.

o Non-Muslims in Islamic Nations

Could it be that non-Muslims feel uncomfortable living in Islamic countries? Firstly, they are few in numbers. Secondly, history shows the opposite.

I thank my opponent. Vote fairly.

-- References --

http://www.en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Jannah, I had started my argument almost right after you wrote yours, and I let it go for some time and then saw that I had little time left. Then I wrote the last few words and the delay on submitting the argument made it all a forfeit.

And Zetsubou, I can guarantee that had the Zionists [or similar "Jewish" groups]not gotten this much attention and power, few Muslims would ever speak badly about Jews. History shows some positive bonds between them.

And you do not have to speak about religions with over 100,000 followers being in conflict with Islam, when you know very well that Christians would never create better friendships.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Every Religion with more than 100,000 people has a conflict with Islam.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
I have heard about him. His family is in Israel I think. Haha. Anyway, Jews and Muslims do have a long history of conflict.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I remember back in primary I was talking to the only Muslim in my class an Afghan. I told him Muslims hate Jews and he didn't deny it. He said the last Jew in Afghanistan is gonna get raped by the Taliban. I thought there couldn't possibly be only one Jew left in Afganistan. I was wrong.

His name is Zebulon Simentov.

Anyway here's info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
One problem I had with this debate is the fact that Mirza didn't really address my point about there being very few Non-Muslims in Islamic countries. He just kind of said "there aren't any churches or temples because very few Non-Muslims live in these countries." He failed to address why there's so few.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by innomen 7 years ago
innomen
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 7 years ago
Valtarov
InsertNameHereMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03