The Instigator
ISLAM_EVIL
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AdInfinitum
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The evil that is Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,268 times Debate No: 26036
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

ISLAM_EVIL

Pro

That the Holy Books of Islam- Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah etc. prove conclusively that this religion is, by any measure infinitely more evil than any other. It is rooted in ignorance & gullibility and seeks to terrorize and control not only non- believers but also those who dare question; uses the worst forms of indoctrination and brainwashing on children; demands torture and murder of the most hideous forms and seeks to remain mired in 7th century behaviour.

It's so-called Prophet was a psychopathic pervert, mass murderer and narcissist whose revelations were inventions to suit his personal agenda; he plagiarized the Bible & claimed originality.
The true Islamist is licensed by these scriptures to do anything he wishes, as long as he does it in the name of Allah (AND his Prophet!), with no regard for humanity. All values of decency, honesty and mercy are treated with arrogant contempt.
Worst, these maniacs want to take over and destroy western civilization and return the world to the Dark Ages. We are on notice.

Please note- First, 'Muslim' does not equate to 'Islamist'; the latter I define as one whose actions and thoughts are dictated entirely by the books mentioned, or by 100% acceptance of what he is told by Imams or Islamic 'scholars'
Second- Please do not obfuscate with comparisons; I care nothing about the relative merits of one religion or another, only in challenging my statement on Islam
Third-I am familiar with Islamic techniques of taqiyya/ kitman, in addition to the usual changes of subject, 'tu quoque', logical fallacies and so on. Please stick to the point and refute my arguments if you can.

I will cite references as the debate progresses as required by my challenger, so as not to be accused of prejudicial actions.
AdInfinitum

Con

The proposition's thesis statement and general argument is deeply flawed on many levels and, throughout my response in this round, I shall demonstrate its incoherence through, for the most part, adopting the falsification principle.

Firstly, you have misunderstood what one would characterise as a 'Holy Book' from an Islamic perspective. The Qu'ran is rightly attributed as such, however, by citing the 'Hadiths' and 'Sunnah' you have committed an egregious error. The Hadiths are not regarded by any Muslim as sacred but rather as a collection of literature which contributes to Islamic jurisprudence, also known as 'Fiqh'. It should also be noted that many Hadiths are disputed, since they have been collected over time, and I am near-certain that you have some of your misconceptions precipitated by subjects that dominate these discourses, which deserve close scrutiny, however, rather than attacking straw men at this point, I shall leave you to present them yourself. Furthermore, the 'Sunnah', cannot be regarded as a Holy text at all, given that, by definition, it denotes the practice of the Prophet himself.

Secondly, I shall refute some of your points on the nature of Islam itself as stated in the first paragraph. You stated that Islam 'seeks to terrorize and control, not only non-believers but those who dare question' without giving any evidence. Now, consider the following Qu'ranic quotations: '"To you your religion, and to me mine" (revealed during the polytheist persecution of the Muslims) and ' We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a bringer of good tidings and a warner '. The first Qu'ranic verse clearly emphasises the importance, on part of the faithful, to respect religious differences, since it marks this difference in a period where Muslims were persecuted. Furthermore, the second quotation clearly addresses the role of Muhammad: to simply warn mankind of God's promise that the life of this world is temporal. Given that the Qu'ran is the sole Holy Book, which all Islamic Jurisprudence is dependent upon, surely this shows that Islam as a religion does not seek to 'terrorise and control', but rather to encourage its followers to practice good, meaningful lives and respect the rights of others. Therefore, surely Islam is not a religion of evil. This is a basic interpretation and I am willing to delve into more detail with regards to these verses, however, I am keen to first read your response. With regards to it seeking to 'remain mired in 7th century behaviour', you"re implying that there is room for Islam to become "good" by coming out of this behaviour and that, therefore, it cannot be regarded as "evil" in a literal sense. Am I not correct? Further, it will always remain absurd that you have condemned Islam"s '7th century behaviour', given that there wasn't anything remotely violent about it during this time, or its adherents. Rather, that whilst being persecuted, the Muslims defended their right to defend themselves. With regards to Islam promoting torture, I ask that you especially explain this claim and produce evidence, because this is not a widespread view, and I am surprised to see this in your argument.

Finally, I will address the content of your third paragraph. Firstly, by citing the Prophet as a psychopath you're travelling down the radical road of labelling without referencing evidences or examples with regards to his frame of mind. Perhaps you're linking this with other 'traits' you cited: namely 'pervert', 'mass murderer' and 'narcissist'. On the subject of 'pervert' I, yet again, ask you to clarify this claim. On 'mass murderer' I am able to work on: as a military General, amongst other things, Muhammad was a man of justice who sought to end the persecution of the Muslims by the Qurayshi tribe and thus led military campaigns in self-defence. If this is a mass murderer, in your opinion, then surely every other military commander can be regarded as such? On 'narcissist' I will say that Muhammad was a humble man, who often rested his head on leaves whilst sleeping, causing marks on his face, and wore torn, simple clothing which mirrored his simple life. If this is a narcissist, in your opinion, then what truly is humble? You also stated that Islam wants to 'destroy western civilisation' - this is appalling, given that it was Islam that orchestrated, built and regulated many western facets that are seen today. It was Islam that was criticised by 'western civilisation' for being 'too lenient' towards topics such as women. The opposite is seen today due to media outlets sensationalising its 'threat' in post-9/11 era.

In final analysis, it is difficult for me not to refute some of the sensationalist claims you have made instead of focusing on my own argument but, as I have repeated throughout this rebuttal, I will wait for your response to generate my own core argument.
Debate Round No. 1
ISLAM_EVIL

Pro

I won't be bogged down in semantics, 'egregious error' notwithstanding; the hadiths/ sunnah are held in the highest esteem by Islamic scholars and used to 'interpret' or 'discover' the infallible truth of the koran, and to clarify some of its many contradictions, from what I have read. The practices of the prophet are also revered as those of the Perfect Man, are they not? Allah is rarely mentioned without the addition of "and his apostle"- true?

You quote early Meccan verses when the prophet was not in a strong position; he even told his followers to acknowledge the 3 female pagan gods of the Arabs of Mecca in an attempt to curry favour with the powerful Quraysh (?) tribe. Later he was forced to retract as his followers pointed out his error in polytheism, hence the "Satanic Verses" as he was (supposedly) deceived by Satan. One must ask- why did all powerful ALLAH not know what was going on??

You are being disingenuous- you know full well that nearly ALL the (gentler) Meccan verses were abrogated by later (violent) ones after the journey to Medina, where the prophet achieved full power and control over his followers.

"given that there wasn't anything remotely violent about it during this time" You ARE referring to 7CE? Outrageous statement! Here is a link for the basics of Islam and I leave it to our readers to judge for themselves- www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html; another - http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com... You will find cross-references to Islamic authorities including the most renowned al-Bukhari and others. I note you have given no such citations.

There are a great many others, all supporting my thesis of the violent nature of Islam, which continues to this very day. Look at the decapitations, amputations, crucifixion and burning alive depicted, plus the horrific abuse of women in honor killings, all accompanied by cries of Allah-huAkbar! If this does not constitute terror and control, what does? This is NOT the work of a few fanatics, otherwise where is the outcry from the 'moderate muslim majority'? Deafening silence, mostly.

Muhammad waged genocidal war against all who opposed him. Ordering 'great slaughter' of defeated enemies is hardly self-defence. Decapitating 600-900 prisoners while he watched is merciful, you say? I would hardly call it that; no, I don't make 'sensational' claims, all I say is proven by the Islamic sources themselves.

Now, your Perfect Man who every true Muslim seeks to emulate... Pervert- marries Aisha at 6 years old; restrains himself by 'thighing' her as she's too small for penetration. So considerate of her that he waits until she is a mature woman of NINE before 'consummating' the marriage! In Aisha's own words, her hair fell out (with the shock and horror she must have felt). He was 54, as you know. Narcissist- used make-up, dressed in Aisha's clothes, the rest is here- http://www.faithfreedom.org... -and you claim this was a HUMBLE man? It beggars belief!
Aisha herself said "the prophet receives verses from Allah to suit every problem he faces" (not exact words but I cannot recall the

Destruction of western civilisation- for 1400 years Islam has preached jihad- & I know how Islamists love to pretend that word is misinterpreted. Countries all over Europe and the USA have been infiltrated by jihadists, following the teachings of Islam to the letter. They have conducted more than 19,500 fatal attacks since 9/11. Kenyan embassies, Bali bombings, London bombings, Madrid, not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq, and a host of others. So much for the religion of peace! Mosques have become centers of terror training in western countries.

You mention Islam's proud history of 'building facets' by which I assume you mean the 'Golden Age' when Islamic scholars preserved and built on the achievements of the great civilizations they conquered. Greece, Rome, Persia, India... yes this is true but it was not original. Islam also burned the great library at Alexandria and the tradition continues with the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, Timbuktu, and the latest idiocy, the proposed destruction of the Great Pyramids of Egypt.

You may think I am patronising you in wishing you could overcome your indoctrination and see your religion in the cold factual light of day; not so, it would be a tremendous achievement on your part. A very, very rare occurrence in the Islamic world, I fear.
AdInfinitum

Con

In order to recognise Islam as objectively evil one must provide absolute proof from its vital holy text, the Qu"ran, clearly demonstrating such an inherent evil, rather than reference openly anti-Islamic websites which hold strong bias against it and make fallacious generalisations on the basis of inhumane crimes committed in the name of the religion. It is not logical that Islam, as a religion in its own right, is to be classed as evil based on so-called "Jihadist" activities, namely the bombings of Kenya, Bali, London, Madrid, Afghanistan and Iraq that you cited. This is because you are assuming two things: an incorrect definition of "Jihad" and that these attacks were committed by those whose interpretations of the Qu"ran, and Islam in general, are perfect. Firstly, the term "Jihad" denotes two things: a faithful"s struggle to be the best Muslim that he or she can be or a struggle to defend, and I"ll repeat, defend Islam by force if necessary. Therefore, by citing so-called "Jihadist" bombings you are not showing that Islam is evil, given that you are assuming the wrong definition, and, also that their interpretation is correct. This is a simultaneous fallacy.

You correctly refer to the verses I quoted in round 1 as Meccan and assumed their peaceful nature was because of "the prophet was not in a strong position" and his later trip to Medina led to "violent" verses. However, this is a factual error on your part. Consider the following, peaceful Medinian verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" - Qur'an 2:256. This shows that, despite being led to war due to the aggressive Quraysh tribe, Muhammad is being told by God that indoctrination is not tolerated in Islam, nor is forced conversion. Therefore, your assertion that "the (gentler) Meccan verses were abrogated by later (violent) ones after the journey to Medina" is false. Additionally, your mention of the "Satanic verses" is misleading, and, given the story"s incoherent chronology, it is not a sufficient condition for Islam to be classed as absolutely evil. Anyhow, Muhammad did not order his followers to "acknowledge the 3 pagan gods of the Arabs of Mecca" and there is no historical evidence to suggest this.

This leads me onto Aisha. It is a matter of fact that her age has not been historically verified and there is a large debate over this; your assertion that she was 6 years of age at the time of marriage and 9 for consummation ignores the strong evidence of favour of her being 19 at the time of marriage and I am willing to delve into much greater detail should you want to pursue this. Speculating over this issue and providing anti-Islamic websites as citations will not provide definitive proof over the morality of Islam. For now, I shall cite the following Qu"ranic verses which makes physical maturation (post-puberty) a requirement for marriage: 4:6, 24:31 and 24:58-59.

By referring to a so-called "genocidal war" put into motion by Muhammad with regards to the Banu Qurayza tribe, and citing the number of executions as "600-900" you are distorting the truth and, yet again, being speculative. This tribe was one who had intense, meticulous dialogue with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca and had three times plotted against and subsequently betrayed Muhammad and the constitution of Medina prior to their siege. In warfare, especially in cases of life or death, you cannot expect a military general who had been persecuted for a number of years to simply wait until he and his followers were themselves killed. It was, after all, a war. Also, the number of executions is also a cause for discourse.

Employing "decapitations, amputations, crucifixion and burning alive depicted, plus the horrific abuse of women in honor killings" as reasons to class Islam as objectively evil is fallacious and a hasty generalisation of Islam. This is because these incidences occur across the globe, non-Muslims including, and are not quantifiable. It does not follow that because of these actions, inspired by ancient cultural tradition rather than Islam, that Islam is evil because you are reducing a religion to the actions of minorities. May I also note that 'Islam' did not burn the Great Library of Alexandria (as this was destroyed over time by various civilisations including the Romans) or the other monuments you mentioned. Again, you've made a fallacious generalisation.

I will now step away from adopting a falsification approach and concentrate on developing my own argument. Consider the 5 pillars of Islam: the Shahadah (declaration of faith: 'I testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his final messenger'), Salah (5 daily prayers), Zakat (alms-giving), Sawm (fasting) and Hajj (pilgrimage). These are all objective realities and together they encompass teachings of the Qu'ran, Islam's definitive text. All of them alleviate pain and/or increase happiness. Thus, they can be considered moral and therefore Islam is not evil.
Debate Round No. 2
ISLAM_EVIL

Pro

This is not a debate; it has descended into fanatical Islamist denial of every piece of evidence provided. Irrational waffle is a waste of my time and presumably of all who are following this. My claims (well, not my claims, rather the facts) have not been addressed in any way at all; I should have not expected anything less from a member of the faith that makes a virtue of barefaced dishonesty, as the least of its evils.

Inevitably when faced with an expose of such barbarity, primitiveness and savagery the only recourse is blather. Of course is mere coincidence that 20,000 attacks are ALL down to Islam and of course, it is a tiny minority of bad Muslims; of course none of this is advocated by the koran. Muhammad didn't do ANY of the evil things recorded by his biographers- Aisha lied, they all lied.

Islam's insurmountable problem is this- the koran is the perfect word of Allah and cannot be questioned, much less altered. Compiled many years after the prophet's death, from hearsay and fallible memories; written for a time and place now completely irrelevant to modern life and values, it is a dangerous anachronism. Unlike all other religions, Islam is fossilized 1400 years ago, a foolish set of errors which we have not elucidated thus far; no point, as my opponent will resort to his only recourse, denial in the face of facts.

However, for the sake of amusement I will mention some of the more ridiculous 'scientific' koranic idiocies-

'Salt and fresh water cannot mix in the sea' Utterly ludicrous. Muslim 'scholars' try to use the halocline, the vertical salt gradient in ocean waters to support the statement; haloclines do NOT form an 'impassable barrier' but a gradual gradient. My bet is muslims noted salt water in seas and fresh in rivers and concluded- they don't mix!

Allah put mountains on the Earth to anchor the land and make Earth stable. No comment.

The sun sets in 'a pool of dark water' and waits until Allah tells it to rise again.
One day he will make it rise in the west. No comment

Embryology- 'the man's semen is thick, and forms the bones; the woman's thin, forming the flesh and skin'

Enough of so-called muslim science. "In recent years, the lagging of the Muslim world in science is manifest in the disproportionately small amount of scientific output as measured by citations of articles published in internationally circulating science journals, annual expenditures on research and development, and numbers of research scientists and engineers.[43]"

My belief is that Islam is (rightly) embarrassed and humiliated by its ignorance and failure to contribute anything of value, reacting with hatred & violence. Far from 'offence' resulting from provocation it is a direct consequence of profound shame.

Last of all, here are some links to detailed compilations of the deadly terrorism perpetrated by the religion of peace
since 9/11-

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Lists of links above from www.thereligionofpeace.com for Islamist terror attacks; see /TheList for explanation and data collection rationale. More data can be added by inserting the year at the end of the base URL all the way back to 2001.

This is my final word- as stated previously, no honest debate is possible and I refuse to waste my efforts.
AdInfinitum

Con

This is a debate whereby I have, so far, mainly adopted the falsification principle as a means to spearhead my rebuttal to your fallacious argument. Clearly you are unaware of such a method, and I also do not appreciate your radical assumption that I am a Muslim or "Islamist". Again, this reflects your speculative, baseless and irrelevant approach to the question of Islam"s morality, and this is further supported by your failure to respond to my coherent, logical argument at the end of round 2.

What I find amusing is how far you have strayed from the topic we are debating, that is, the question of Islam"s morality and not the Science of the Qu"ran or its infallibility. You have failed to address the moral question and therefore, rather than spend time on correcting your hasty generalisations of Islam and addressing your irrelevant and misleading reference to the Qu"ran"s scientific facts, I will concentrate on my building the argument I developed at the end of round 2.

Firstly, I shall again state that it is a truism of Islam that its 5 pillars encompass all the fundamental teachings of the Qu"ran, its single, holy text. Through the Qu"ran, which you admit does not advocate terrorist attacks; we can determine whether or not Islam is objectively evil, because it is believed to be the absolute word of God which all Muslims must follow in order to be recognised as faithful. The 5 pillars, which all Muslims must practice, I shall state again: the Shahadah (declaration of faith: "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger"), Zakat (alms-giving,), Hajj (pilgrimage), Sawm (Fasting) and Salah (5 daily prayers). Each of these pillars either alleviate suffering or increase happiness; none of them have the quality of instigating suffering or decreasing happiness. The majority of Muslims put faith into practice in this way in a peaceful manner as this provides a moral framework for them and a spiritual enlightenment. It is a pure connection to the God they believe in. Furthermore, it is an intrinsic property of the actions themselves that, should they be practiced, only "Good" is the result. Thus, they can be considered moral and therefore, Islam as a religion cannot be regarded as objectively evil.

Perhaps by summarising your argument thus far in three key steps I can demonstrate your incoherency:
1.There are as many as "20,000" attacks committed by people in the name of Islam.
2.Evidence (in the form of anti-Islamic websites) demonstrates this "deadly terrorism" since 9/11.
3.Therefore, Islam is objectively evil.
Any rational mind cannot deny your first premise, although the numerical value cited can be questioned for accuracy. The people know that these attacks have occurred, just as equally as they know similar attacks occur through non-Muslims (note that I am not suggesting that so-called "Islamist" terrorists can be defined as "Muslims"). A rational mind would question your second premise and its citations; given that they are anti-Islamic and therefore bias in their argumentation. Your main conclusion, that Islam is objectively evil, does not follow from your premises. This is partly due to the hasty generalisation and inability to provide absolute proof through its holy text.

In conclusion, in spite of your radical assumptions, incoherence and irrelevant comments, I believe that I have done well in this round to focus on my own argument, that Islam is not objectively evil.
Debate Round No. 3
ISLAM_EVIL

Pro

Despite my last statement refusing to 'debate' someone whose method is nothing more than denial I suppose I must complete the process, such as it is.
Religious fanaticism is better summed up by a far greater thinker than me (or you) as follows-

Thomas Aquinas-
HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Bertrand Russell"criticized Aquinas' philosophy on the ground that-
(I took the liberty of substituting 'Islam' for 'Catholic' as the essence does not change)

He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Islamic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.
Aquinas's ideas had much in common with Islam.

Coherent logical argument? A mere statement of FAITH, as you yourself state; not logic. So I don't believe for a second that Allah exists, how do you logically deny my belief? The last 4 may be objective realities but are still entirely subjective to the non- believer. For instance, Salah to me is unnecessary- why is once not enough? And do Muslims suffer from amnesia so badly they need to be reminded by the muezzin 5 times every day of their lives? The central principle of brainwashing is endless repetition, so effective in Islam. Another version of Zakat is Jizya, for the infidel- the tax they must pay to be allowed to live, albeit under subjugation and humiliation. Another fact for you to deny?

So the sites I quote are anti-Islamic; you imply that proves they are not factual? What kind of strawman argument is that? You refuse to view the videos of your heroic jihadists mutilating and beheading innocent people whilst screaming Allah-Hu'Akbar, employ the expected obfuscation & denial and expect to get away with it? Islam has been rumbled and so have you.

"I feel I have done well"... love your smug assumption- judgement may be better left to the voters.
AdInfinitum

Con

I applaud you for finally attempting to write with some relevance to the question of Islam"s morality and on deciding to continue with this debate. But you have not understood my argument.

The purpose of my argument is to demonstrate that Islam is not objectively evil. It is not designed to undermine, question or "logically deny" your beliefs. Your quotation of Bertrand Russell assumes that I am trying to "defend parts of the faith"; I assure you that I am not. Rather, I am trying to argue that Islam is not objectively evil. I shall prove this by summarising my argument from the previous round in the following steps:

1.It is a truism of Islam that its 5 pillars encompass all the fundamental teachings of the Qu"ran.
2.The Qu"ran is Islam"s single holy text, upon which all Islamic law is dependent, since it is believed to be the unaltered word of God.
3.All Muslims must follow the Qu"ran in order to be recognised as faithful.
4.The 5 pillars, which all Muslims must practice are the Shahadah (declaration of faith: "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger"), Zakat (alms-giving,), Hajj (pilgrimage), Sawm (Fasting) and Salah (5 daily prayers).
5.Each of these pillars either alleviate suffering or increase happiness; none of them have the quality of instigating suffering or decreasing happiness
6.The 5 pillars provide a moral framework for the majority of Muslims in the world to live peacefully. As a spiritual enlightenment, it is a pure connection to the God they believe in.
7.Furthermore, it is an intrinsic property of the pillars themselves that, should they be practiced, only "Good" is the result
8.Thus, they can be considered moral.
9.Therefore, Islam, as a religion, is not objectively evil.
As you can see, your opinion on the number of times the Salah and call to prayer should be performed is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is objectively evil. Moreover, you stated: "The central principle of brainwashing is endless repetition, so effective in Islam" - this is relevant, as one could argue indoctrination is evil, however, you have not formed a coherent, logical argument based on this premises and have thus not come to the conclusion that Islam is objectively evil. Regardless, I would question how the Islamic call to prayer indoctrinates; repetition does not necessarily equate to indoctrination. Here is the English translation of the call to prayer:

1.God is greatest
2.I bear witness that there is no deity except God
3.I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God
4.Come to prayer
5.Come to success
6.God is greatest
7.There is no deity except God
How does this demonstrate that Islam is objectively evil? It is essentially an invitation.

You are very misleading on the topic of Jizya. Jizya is not a form of Zakat, one of the five pillars mentioned in my above argument; it is thought to be a tax on non-Muslim males of affording power (although there is discourse over this definition). At first glance, taking this definition may appear to be vaguely "subjugation" or "humiliation"; however, there is more to it than that. Jizya is proof of one"s subjection to the state and its laws, rather than subjection to Islam, and in return it provides exemption from military service and, critically, the Zakat made obligatory to Muslims. The Qu"ran does not propagate these economic attributes, and, interestingly, if we take a look at the hadith of Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425, you will find that it is written Jesus (Isa), upon his second coming, will abolish the Jizya (from an Islamic thought). And this opens the door for Muslims to debate over Jizya. More critically, it does not demonstrate that Islam is objectively evil, given its purpose, parallel taxes upon Muslims and lack of mention in the Qu"ran.

Here (below) is the summary of your argument which I made in round 3.

1.There are as many as "20,000" attacks committed by people in the name of Islam.
2.Evidence (in the form of anti-Islamic websites) demonstrates this "deadly terrorism" since 9/11.
3.Therefore, Islam is objectively evil.
Of course I am implying the anti-Islamic websites may not be factual; they are anti-Islamic and inherently biased. Facts are easily distorted. Surely one would look for more objective forms of evidence to answer the question of Islam's morality. Also, how many times must I comment on your hasty generalisations? People 'mutilating and beheading innocent people whilst screaming Allah-Hu'Akbar' does not objectively prove that Islam is objectively evil, given that it is permeated with wild assumptions that I have exposed in previous rounds.

In concluding this round, I would like to note your radical assumption that I sympathise with "heroic jihadists". Also, my comment "I believe that I have done well in this round to focus" was made in spite of your endless assumptions, not as a "smug" assumption in its own right. Sure enough, the voters will recognise this.
Debate Round No. 4
ISLAM_EVIL

Pro

<>
In trying to rebut my claim, of course you are defending the faith- against the claim that it is intrinsically evil. Why else would you be bothering? Just more intellectual dissembling.
I note you are very keen to get off the subject and on to the 5 Pillars. These statements bear slight resemblance to the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes, in that they seek to stress the 'good' stuff and avoid mention of the 'bad' stuff- quite typical of religion in general.
My conviction is that slavish acceptance of religious dogma, total surrender to a mythical supernatural power and its supposed infallibility is a recipe for doing evil in its name. Whatever so-called 'scholars' decide is the correct interpretation, followers are bound to enact. No choice, no objections, no logic allowed.

You are familiar with the cliche- "Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but religion causes good people do do bad things? This response is illuminating-

"As a Christian, unfortunately I must somewhat agree. The Inquisition, the Crusades, witch burnings, terrorist attacks are all examples of religious people doing bad things just because their religion told them to"

I have not yet seen any response from the Islamic world similar to this- why not?

The recent shooting of the 14 year old Pakistani schoolgirl- by your brave Taliban Islamists; another example of the utter absence of human decency from the religion of peace. Yet another 'misinterpretation'/ 'misunderstanding' / 'western propaganda'/ tiny unrepresentative minority... what's your next excuse?? At last SOME of the Pakistani public have shown their disgust. About time, isn't it?

It's a relief to end this nonsensical debate- the defence of the indefensible. What a sick joke.
AdInfinitum

Con

You suggested that my rebuttal was faith-based, according to your quotation by Bertrand Russell, which is wrong given that my reasoning is based on objective realities.

You also wrote that the 5 pillars of Islam, derived from the Qu"ran and the basis of my 9-step argument, avoid "mention of the 'bad' stuff". But this is absurd, given that you have not shown me this "bad stuff" derived from the Qu"ran, which is necessary as it is only this way you can definitively prove that Islam is objectively evil. You simply have not done this; not once in this debate have you demonstrated evil from the Qu"ran, rather, you have referenced anti-Islamic websites, which you admit are indeed anti-Islamic, as objective proof of the "evil" of Islam. Furthermore, you have forgotten that the essence of the 5 pillars is that they encompass the entire fundamental moral landscape offered by the Qu"ran, and hence the purpose of my argument is to demonstrate this:

1.It is a truism of Islam that its 5 pillars encompass all the fundamental teachings of the Qu"ran.
2.The Qu"ran is Islam"s single holy text, upon which all Islamic law is dependent, since it is believed to be the unaltered word of God.
3.All Muslims must follow the Qu"ran in order to be recognised as faithful.
4.The 5 pillars, which all Muslims must practice are the Shahadah (declaration of faith: "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger"), Zakat (alms-giving,), Hajj (pilgrimage), Sawm (Fasting) and Salah (5 daily prayers).
5.Each of these pillars either alleviate suffering or increase happiness; none of them have the quality of instigating suffering or decreasing happiness
6.The 5 pillars provide a moral framework for the majority of Muslims in the world to live peacefully. As a spiritual enlightenment, it is a pure connection to the God they believe in.
7.Furthermore, it is an intrinsic property of the pillars themselves that, should they be practiced, only "Good" is the result
8.Thus, they can be considered moral.
9.Therefore, Islam, as a religion, is not objectively evil.
I also feel obliged to write that you have failed to overcome this argument.

You stated that your 'conviction is that slavish acceptance of religious dogma, total surrender to a mythical supernatural power and its supposed infallibility is a recipe for doing evil in its name. Whatever so-called 'scholars' decide is the correct interpretation, followers are bound to enact. No choice, no objections, no logic allowed.".
Here, all you have done is write that evil is done in the name of Islam and rather than critique Islam"s morality, you are criticizing the followers for their "slavish acceptance" and the scholars for their dominance. You are not addressing your own proposition; that is Islam is objectively evil. Quite frankly, your direction is rather confused.
I feel obliged to, yet again, summarise your argument over the course of this debate: (I note that you have not once challenged this summary).

1.There are as many as "20,000" attacks committed by people in the name of Islam.
2.Evidence (in the form of anti-Islamic websites) demonstrates this "deadly terrorism" since 9/11.
3.Therefore, Islam is objectively evil.
I have already pointed out why your main conclusion does not follow from its premises in earlier rounds, and so the purpose of it here now is to allow readers to compare and contrast our arguments.

You cited a quote by a Christian who says the people do bad things because "their religion told them to". This is a fallacious appeal to authority and from it, it does not follow that Islam is objectively evil as it does not contain substantial evidence for that proposition. Does the Qu"ran advocate terrorist attacks? The killing of innocent people? No, is the answer, and you have failed to demonstrated otherwise.

In your final paragraph you do not cease to be offensive and frankly uncivil. Again, you assume that I am a Muslim and that I sympathise with "brave Taliban Islamists". I will take the liberty of summarising the argument from this paragraph:
1: "brave Taliban Islamists" shot a 14 year old girl
2: Therefore, Islam is objectively evil

This highlights, in general, the severity of your fallacious reasoning: your hasty generalisations, lack of absolute proof, appeals to authority. You, the proposition, have failed to provide a concrete argument, composing of premises and a main conclusion, to prove that Islam is objectively evil. Often, you have made irrelevant comments and strayed far from the topic.

Dear readers, I have to a reasonable extent exposed these fallacies and I urge you to delve deeply into all of the rounds in this debate and, particularly, compare and contrast my 9-step argument with my opponent's reasoning. On a final note, I, unlike my opponent, have enjoyed this debate and it has highlighted some of the fallacious reasoning that some people adopt to come to a hasty conclusion that Islam is evil.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
Further reading convinces me that Islamists glory in being slaves- to Allah and his Prophet; thus their entire lives are lived in bondage to their celestial dictator. Free people find this completely baffling but to a devout Muslim it makes perfect sense.
Posted by AdInfinitum 4 years ago
AdInfinitum
You did not cite those verses during the debate.
Posted by AdInfinitum 4 years ago
AdInfinitum
That is ridiculous. I believe my comment was: 'Not once did you cite a Qu'ranic verse with moral implications' and, of course, this our debate. I will not drive myself to the point by constantly correcting your false claims. I will say, however, that it is important to consider the context in which those verses were revealed, who they are referring to and the fact that they are for self-defence purposes. I am not going to waste further time on correcting you on this comment section.
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4

So NONE of these have "moral implications"- you are completely MAD. And this explains your inanity-

http://www.islam-watch.org...
Posted by AdInfinitum 4 years ago
AdInfinitum
@ISLAM_EVIL - 'My opponent's utter denial of what the koran says is predictable' - Not once did you cite a Qu'ranic verse with moral implications. Rather, you referenced anti-Islamic websites and used them as a basis for the following conclusion: 'Islam is evil'. However, I do recall you writing on Qu'ranic Science, which is not the topic of our debate and therefore irrelevant.
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Hi, I assume you are a Christian, so not unbiased here? Presumably you mean
"I see no way Islam would fail to live DOWN to its own standards."?
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
My aim in this debate is not to 'win' but to try to raise awareness. I care nothing of the score as long as just one person is motivated to find out and expose this vile religion. Every so called 'insult' to the prophet is another step to drawing the madmen out and disproving the pack of lies masquerading as peacefulness and I will do all in my power to insult as often and as widely as possible.

"All religions fail for the same reason- they get found out"
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
Appreciate your position, ishallannoyyo. Thanks for comment. Would just like to say that whilst you are not religious you will be shocked and confounded if you research what Islam really is. My opponent's utter denial of what the koran says is predictable because the actual words are so abominable that no sane person could defend them. As I stated, the deniers' use of taqiyya is mandated by Allah, so a religion that is dishonest can't be a religion by civilized standards. However, a tiny minority in the west is fully informed re Islam and as Goebbels wisely said "tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth"
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
@ISLAM_EVIL, I respect your opinion but in no way form or shape does ANY religion at all advocate these crimes. These crimes are committed by people who interpret the religion in that way.

Good debate guys, can't vote, I'm not religious, that's my opinion.
Posted by ISLAM_EVIL 4 years ago
ISLAM_EVIL
Hey, DeFool-

Looked up Pazuzu and he's a bit of a charmer! (Pazuzu also appears in "Mummies on Parade")
No votes have been placed for this debate.