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

The world would be better off without 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: 8/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,233 times Debate No: 79164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (0)




To be clear, at no point am I implying that all Muslims shouldn’t exist, or that Muslims should be wiped out. I’ll preface with the usual disclaimer: I have Muslim friends and I’m almost militant in my opposition to racism. I’m an Atheist and I believe that all religions are purely a manmade delusion. I’m against all religions, along with any other belief that promotes Iron Age mythology as fact, judges people based on archaic and unfair laws, and creates violence, hatred, or any other kind of immoral practice. However, I will say that the most alarming form of religion has to be Islam. I would not attack Jainism in the same way I would attack Islam because that wouldn’t be fair to Jainism.

I’ll be using the Pickthall translation whenever possible.

C1: Islam directly promotes violence and intolerance

Islam as an ideology directly promotes violence, racism, misogyny, and terrorism. Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror, he spread a very literal form of Islam by the sword. The Quran and the Hadith are packed with verses condoning violence against those who don’t profess belief in Islam. In total, there are 109 verses in the Quran that call for war against unbelievers.

For example:

002.191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

003.151 “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers

002.216 “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

The history of the Muslims is packed with violence. Muhammad slaughtered and force converted people all over the Middle East in some 65 military campaigns. He enslaved children (Bukhari, Vol. 8, Bk. 74, Num. 276), raped women (Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 62, Num. 137), had people’s heads and hands cut off (Abudawud, Bk. 38, Num. 4396) and plenty of other crimes against humanity. He married and deflowered a child, and directly because of this places like Saudi Arabia continue to marry off children, some of which die on their wedding night of internal bleeding.

Proof of Islam’s inability to create peace is evident even in the early years of its existence. After Muhammad dies, war breaks out almost immediately. Tens of thousands of Muslims slaughter each other, relatives behead each other, and these sects break off into factions that are still fighting in some places to this day. How anybody can claim that this religion promotes peace is utterly beyond me.

Keeping with this theme, there are many other policies that Islam promotes that are simply vile. I’ll do it in list form to save some space:

1. Apostasy is death: Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk. 52, Num. 261: “…the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

2. Menstruation is a disease, 2:222, “They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.”

3. Women are lesser, 2:223, “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will…” 2:228, “…And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them…”

4. Satanic Verses, in which Muhammad is apparently taken in by the devil and makes a few mistakes. The next time I say something stupid, I must remember the Prophet, and simply say, “Satan made me say it.”

5. Allah makes unbelievers, so don’t bother warning them: 2:6, “As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.

6. Anti-Semitism, 2:6, “And thou wilt find them (the Jews) greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

7. Even befriending an unbeliever is a crime, 4:144, “O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?”

I could keep going, but instead, I’ll simply recommend that voters go and look it up for themselves. Any real, secular study of the Quran will lead to the same conclusion, as Sam Harris says, “The Quran, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance.”

C2: Interpretation is no defence

You can claim interpretation on several verses; and say things like, “That’s just how you see it.” This excuse might work some of the time with some of the verses, but taken as a whole, the Quran is a deeply dangerous book. It promises heavenly rewards for those who fight and die for Islam. It’s deeply misogynistic and gives rules that are truly antiquated in light of modern science. Muhammad, said to be the chosen prophet, is a deeply violent figure, a man who bathed himself in wealth and warfare until the day he died – hardly a perfect man, and hardly a good man to model oneself after.

The effects of Islam are felt most plainly and obviously in the thousands of terrorist attacks that Muslim literalists commit every year – often to other Muslims! Some relate blaming Islam to condemning a neighbourhood based on the crimes of a small group of thugs. What is far more interesting to me is to ask, “Why are there so many thugs?” Why do we have to constantly face the threat of fundamentalist Islamists all throughout the Middle East? Western Islam might be tame in comparison, but to ignore the growing problem of fundamentalism is a bit like ignoring a festering wound. It is a profound problem, and not just because of terrorism.

The misogyny promoted in the Quran has been an excuse for men to rape women, for example, in Bangladesh - this is a massive, massive issue. Gang rape and child rape are growing at a frightening pace, and often the police do not try the criminals who commit these acts. In the Bangladesh capital last year, only three gang rapists were actually tried for their crimes. In reality, according to the Bangledesh Shishu Adhikar Forum, in the first six months of 2015 over 280 children were raped. There have been over 900 rape cases reported, but most go unreported.

In the capital city, Dhaka, the Police Commander Mohammed Shahjalal Munshi has said, “Foreign media, such as Indian TV and films are watched by our children, who then want to wear these revealing outfits. That’s the issue. We follow Islamic laws and rules here. I think if girls cover themselves up, I would be far less attracted to them and they towards me.” Those are the words of a local police commander! It is the fault of the woman for not covering themselves, and to be clear here, they live in a very Islamic city, in which many women wear the traditional veil.

The Quran makes it clear that the testimony of a woman is worth half of what a man’s is worth (2.282). This, coupled with that choice verse about wives being tilth do not make for a respectful environment for women. If we used Islamic law to judge rape cases, we’d end up like Bangladesh.

4:34, “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

4:15 “As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).”

So, in conclusion, we'd be better off not fooling ourselves by believing in fairy tales that can be interpreted as a call to arms by thousands and thousands of Muslims. We’d be better off using modern law, living in a world of science and reason, and using a modern sense of morality, not one that says 5:38, “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah.”


The Quran – Pickthall



So firstly, if you say that you have Muslim friends then, how come they can't explain the verses you have mentioned in your argument? For me, the verses that you have just mentioned are out of context and easy to explain, if, you are a true Muslim who has read and understood the Quran, you can easily thwart those arguments, but, before going on about the verses, I just wanted you to not forget that at the time before Muhammad (peace be upon him) started teaching to his disciples, Saudi Arabia was in a state of immorality and chaos. It was very common at the time that you hear cases of fathers literally groping their daughters, slavery was very common throughout the land. It was one of many reasons that Allah (SWT) sent down a messenger. So, when you said that as soon as Muhammad (peace be upon him) died, the Islamic world erupted into chaos... Didn't you know that after the civil war, the Middle East used to be one of the most peaceful and most technologically advanced civilisation in the entire world (The Islamic Golden Age)? They were the people who discovered Algebra, discovered that light went into the eye, it was a Muslim philosopher who created the world's first working parachute and perfected a machine out of silk and eagle feathers and managed to stay aloft for more than 10 minutes when he jumped down from a cliff. I can go on and on about it because there are SO many discoveries, so, it will be up to you to search up more on the Islamic Golden Age. Because, I was taught about all of it in school, I doubt any Western schools would so do search it up... Also, it is disturbing that you use examples from poor 3rd world countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia and make it a representative of the whole of Islam. Why not include Turkey or Malaysia (my country) or e.t.c...

Ok, about Quran verse 2:191, didn't you know that the Mushrikun were the ones who slayed Muslims and massacred their women and children? I mean, read that verse carefully and you will start to see that it says do not fight in the place of worship unless they attack you first. It is right for they were the ones who broke the treaty and forced the Muslims out, so what's wrong about taking back stolen land? Doesn't Quran verse 9:4 say: "Do not harm those who respect the treaty for Allah loves the righteous", doesn't Quran verse 9:6 say: "if anyone of the polytheists ask for protection then you shall grant him it so he can here the words of Allah".
Quran verse 3:151 is talking about the afterlife, means those who disbelieve in what the Quran forbids and still go on to commit the atrocities like the ones before Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time will be put in the fire.
Quran verse 2:216 is talking about basic self defence. The word used here is Qital (fighting) not warfare. I can see here that you have yet again misquoted another verse.
And another fact that you have probably pulled out of your behind is that Islam allows underage marriage... Can you explain to me Quran Verse 4:6? Where it mentions a 'marriageable age?' A marriageable age is as Muhammad (peace be upon him) answered is where you have learned everything you need to learn about Islam and it's history. Do you really think that 6 year old Aisha could have possibly learned all this by her age? NO, OF COURSE NOT! There are a lot of evidence suggesting that Aisha was 16 year old when she married and 19 at the time of consummation! The only Islamic countries that have not set an age limit on marriage is Saudi Arabia and Yemen! What about all the other Islamic countries that you so wrongly accuse when they have a very strict law on underage marriage!
Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, Number 262: This verse you have pointed out is against a really important verse in the Quran, Verse 2:256: "there is no compulsion in religion," means you haven't THE RIGHT to forcefully impose a religion onto someone, whether it be Islam or the likes. A lot of Hadiths say that leaving Islam is not enough to to warrant execution. However, Islamophobes point to this one verse when, there are SO MANY other Hadiths that are against the killing of apostates. The people of poorer countries like Egypt think that apostates deserve the death penalty, because they are motivated by hateful war-monger imams who don't even follow the Islamic Traditions or the Quran...
Quran Verse 2:222, to be honest doesn't violate women's rights in any way... It simply tells men to leave women alone when they are on their period. Sounds very sensible if you ask me!
Quran Verse 2:223 explains that the relationship between a husband and wife is like that of a farmer and his tilth. A farmer approaches his field not just for the sake of pleasure but also to produce. That is why farmers must give it tender loving care... Which means that the husband must have a good sexual relationship with his wife, not a forceful one.
Quran Verse 2:228 shows that men have a GREATER RESPONSIBILITY over women than that of what women have over men. Really, I think that you keep misinterpreting verses in the Quran because your way of thinking has become the same as that of Fox News...
More Quran Verses to explain:
Quran Verse 2:6 tells us to not bother warning the disbelievers of what is to come in the after life. REMEMBER: "a disbeliever is someone who commits atrocities like the ones before Muhammad's (peace be upon him) time."
For the Quran verse on "anti-semitism", sorry but I cannot seem to find it :(...
Quran Verse 4:144, SEE! The problem here is that your dumb Pickthall translator thingy translates the word "wali" as "friends" when it actually means "patrons!" Actually, my best friend just so happens to be a Catholic, DOES THAT MEAN I GO AGAINST THE QURAN?
Sam Harris's bigoted quote is REALLY VERY wrong for its actually him who, every word he says, is a manifesto to promote hate and violence towards Muslims! You say that the Quran is a really dangerous book, more dangerous than the others. But, what about the Bible? There are 671 verses of violence in the Bible versus the 109 in the Quran... I know that Christians argue they are just metaphors but still, why take it all out on Muslims? Your question on "WHY ARE THERE SO MANY THUGS IN THE MIDDLE EAST', my answer: " Because the Americans are pounding them with air strikes, killing 1.5 million innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan alone... Before 1949, the Middle East was mainly peaceful apart from Turkey. It was until the U.S. illegally created a State of Israel in a land where Muslims and Jews lived peacefully, even sharing places of worship in some cases, that started an age of oppression in the land, prompting Middle Eastern countries to stand up, ultimately resulting in anger towards the one sided Americans and creating hatred that leads to bankruptcy that then leads to terrorists!" Now, I have a question for you: "Why is it that the American Government keep interfering with the business of more than 70 countries worldwide after World War 2, even deploying troops in about 50 of them?"
Can I just blindly say that " the world would be better off without America?"
Then you come to the conclusion that just because the biggest problem in Bangledesh is rape, that means the problem with ALL OF ISLAM is rape... Truly stupid if you ask me... Not mentioning the fact that even ADULTERY might result in serious punishment according to the Quran...
Right, more verses!
Quran Verse 4:34 says that Allah (SWT) has made men excel women so it is men who are in charge. Which, I'm not trying to be sexist here, is true. Think about it, men appear to be more stronger whilst, women appear to be more good with kids. The Quran says that men and women should get the same in heritage and e.t.c but men are meant to do different things like fighting in battles, doing heavy work like logging and e.t.c, that is why you probably have never come across a female laying bricks or something. Whilst women are made to do work mainly around the house. Don't get me wrong, I am against locking women inside the house cleaning. I feel that they should be able to go anywhere they please and as I said earlier, the Quran says that both a woman and her brothers should get the same amount of heritage passed down! And, a man being in control of a woman doesn't mean he can get her to do ANYTHING he wants... It just simply means that the woman shouldn't be able to fire servants, punish the children without the husband's consent! If man and woman are the same, the WORLD WOULDN'T BE AS IT IS TODAY!!! I mean, who is going to take care of the children and e.t.c. Islam is against men being able to thrash women on the face or body as punishment. If a man is too harsh, then, the woman has the right to consent for a divorce and her parents must deal with that fact and not abandon her out on the streets but to care for her until she finds another husband.
And finally Quran Verse 4:15 means a life sentence in prison, not starve them to death! Or until Allah (SWT) has ordained for them another way means "until there is a new development." If you actually done your research then, you ought to know that IT APPLIED TO MEN AS WELL! This verse was abrogated anyway, and the punishment was limited to lashings instead!

So in conclusion, we'd be better off not fooling ourselves with these Islamophobic fairy tales which is commonly used to call to arms THOUSANDS of Americans. And making it an excuse to cold-heartedly blowing up 1.5 MILLION innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2 million if you count the American air strikes done in the ENTIRE Middle East...

Thank you for reading my 9800 word essay on why the world WOULDN'T be better off without Islam so, best of luck on the next round! :)
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the detailed response Con. I’m always interested to learn how different Muslims view the Quran. I don’t claim to be an expert; and I am certainly not a Muslim.

My problem with arguing for historical context is this: In no way does that excuse the behavior of these Bronze Age warriors. We shouldn’t be finding ways to apologize for the actions of brutal warriors, we should be studying them like we study most ancient civilizations. Only when you introduce religion to a historical figure do the apologists come out of the woodwork. Muhammad died and war immediately broke out. Yes, once that war was finished the Islamic Golden Age began.

Let’s not forget that the Golden age was hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Back then, it was much harder to be an atheist, much less a secularist, being that secularism wasn’t thought of until the Enlightenment. This is why other great scientists like Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of them all, were all mostly all theists. They didn’t know about modern physics, or Darwinian evolution. God was the only answer until fairly recently. Using a period of history to say that our modern world needs Islam is a shallow argument. The Golden Age occurred in spite of Islam and religious teaching, not because of it.

One of the main reasons the Islamic empire collapsed (after the conquest of Genghis Khan, Crusades, etc.) was the preference of taqleed thinking over ijtihad. What truly killed the scientific and technological improvements of this time period? The caliph Al-Mutawakkil, whose reign is now marked and remembered solely because of his attempts to downplay the Greek philosophy they had been studying by labeling it “anti-Islamic”, his attempts to downplay science and reason in favor of religious interpretation and divine revelation, and his enforcement of the Quran and the Hadith. What killed them was the attempt to have more religion.

2:191 – That’s not strictly true. Muhammad is often the aggressor (Meccan caravans, the Battle of Khaybar, etc.). It says do not fight them in the place of worship, sure, but that’s only in the place of worship. It also just says seek them out and destroy them until they give up and convert. It’s a generalized command. Slaughter those who don’t believe the same as you. Kill them until they convert. 193, “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

This is in stark contrast to say, Jesus’ call for the unbelievers, who, I might add, was just as persecuted, if not far more so; when he says, “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” in Matthew 5:39. I don’t condone Jesus, but as a comparison, you tell me which is easier to interpret as a call to arms.

3:151 - You’ll have to explain to me how that can be only interpreted in the context of heaven, and more importantly, how that makes it any more acceptable.

2:216 – Again, you are going to have to explain to me how that is a self-defensive. What’s most vile to me isn’t the call to fight, it’s the call to ignore what you think is right or wrong and just trust that Allah knows best. That disturbs me.

4:6 – This verse mentions a ‘marriable age’ and nothing more. Let’s look at Muhammad. He married Aisha when she was six or seven, (which is bizarre enough), but he deflowered her at nine or ten. Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 58, Num. 236, “He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.” If they set laws up to raise the minimum to a reasonable age for marriage, be assured that this is also in spite of what the Quran sets by example, and in spite of Muhammad.

Hadith Sahih Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, Number 262 – You can’t wiggle your way out of this one. Muhammad says it plainly as anybody could. He says, “Kill them.” That’s it. So either you admit he was wrong and made a big, big, mistake or you accept the command. Again, if Muhammad gives an excuse for people to murder those who leave the religion, even if no Western Muslims follow it, the vileness of this verse still exists separately. It still marks the teachings of Muhammad.

2:222 – This isn’t really a big deal, but labeling menstruation as a sickness is not conducive to logical, respectful treatment of women. It’s not a sickness. The Quran is wrong. It’s a wholly natural process every woman goes through.

2:223 – This is a big deal. A farmer and his dirt is in no way comparable to a female human being and her male partner. A marriage is a two-way street. A woman is not a cow to be impregnated in order to produce goods. She is a human being to be respected. Surely you must understand this. She has just as much freedom, power, and civil rights as a man does. This is a deeply offensive verse to me. It really does offend me, and I’m a man.

2:228 – Even if I submit to that interpretation (which I absolutely do not), how is that any less offensive? No, a man does not have more responsibility over a woman. A woman is free to do whatever she wants. If she wants to leave the man because he’s an intolerant fool, that is her right.

After surviving two abusive Fathers I have special experience in this area. Men are often truly evil creatures. To say that my step-dad had a special right to stay with my Mother would be sentencing not only my Mother but our entire family to years more of physical and emotional abuse. Too long have women been kept scared and servile to men like that over religious nonsense. As a working Journalist, I have publically attacked Fox News – I’ve personally taken great joy in shoving them out of media scrums whenever possible. Don’t tell me I’m like Fox News.

2:6 - You have redefined what a disbeliever is. That’s a very poor semantical argument with just about no factual basis. That’s not what disbeliever means. Unless you have better proof for this point I don’t think it stands up to any logical analysis.

4:144 - “…dumb Pickthall translator thingy” Really? Here it is in four other translations:

Sahih International

O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case?

Yusuf Ali

O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?”


O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?”

Sam Harris, along with myself, do not ‘hate’ anybody. I don’t care what you look like, I don’t care what tradition you come from, I really, really, couldn’t care less. A bad idea is a bad idea; I seek out bad ideas and criticize them for what they really are: Bad ideas. That’s it. You made an error here. There are 671 verses of violence in the Bible, there are 109 verses that directly call for war with unbelievers. That is unique to the Quran. The Bible doesn’t call for Jihad – it doesn’t even imply it. Jesus says stuff like, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” In Matt 26:52.

What really separates these two books isn’t that the Bible is all good and the Quran is all evil. The Quran has some great stuff in it, and the Bible has some great stuff in it. When we talk about bad stuff, the Bible is rife with bad stuff, but the Quran’s bad stuff is directly dangerous to modern society. It can so very easily be interpreted as a call to arms. The Bible requires more of a nut job to spin its verses into any kind of Jihad.

To blame America for thousands of years of brutal religious conflict is disingenuous. These people have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years. The Muslims kill the Jews, the Christians kill the Muslims, the Muslims kill other Muslims, the Jews kill other Jews, etc. etc. I mean, if you seriously think that area was peaceful until 1949, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. WW1 really messed the region up, but they’d been fighting forever – ( We both agree on Israel. I’m totally on your side there. Why do they keep meddling with the Middle East? It rhymes with ‘toil’. I’m in no way Pro-America. I’m Canadian. We don’t like America.

I never even remotely implied that the biggest problem in Islam is rape. You projected that – a strawman argument. What I did was provide a real-world example of what happens when we use Islamic teachings and the Islamic view of women to prosecute rapists. The Quran is oddly silent on rape. You’re right, it does talk about adultery, but not rape. Neither does the Bible for that matter.

As for this preposterous view of male superiority: If you want to solve poverty, there is only one way to do it, and it works every time. Empower the women. Let the women control their birth rates. Let them choose when to get married and when to have kids and let them contribute to society.

4:15 – Thank you for making sure I understand it’s only life in prison and/or that it’s been updated to lashings.

Using another totally separate issue to distract attention away from the issue we are currently discussing is a cheap tactic. U.S. interventionism is another issue I am wholly against and one that seems to be improving. We aren’t talking about U.S. interventionism, we are talking about Islam. I’ve rebutted almost all of your verses. You haven’t brought up any actual proof of a modern society that improved drastically when Islamic rule took over. You tried to use the Islamic Golden Period as a kind of real world example, and I showed how it was Islam itself that killed progress the Islamic Empire had made.




Thank you for your response.
If you have actually read the Quran, then, you ought to know that Islam actually encourages discoveries and new technologies. As seen from Quran verses: 20:114 ("O'lord increase me in knowledge"), 45:13 ("...All that is in the heavens and on Earth: Behold are signs, indeed for those who reflect"), 30:22 ("And of His sign is the creation of the heavens and the earth: and the differences of your languages and colours. Lo! Herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge") and there are many more verses that inspire Muslims to study new technology and to observe what Allah (SWT) has created.
The main reason for the fall of the Islamic Empire wasn't Al-Mutawakkil and his Taqleed for he was a ruthless caliph among many others, he was simply just a bad egg and died in 861AD, long before the fall of the Islamic Empire. There were a lot of scientific discoveries AFTER the death of Al-Mutawakkil including: "A nebulous spot found in the Andromeda constellation, The law of sines, Quasicrytalline Geometry and of course SO MUCH MORE! The real reason behind the fall of the Islamic Empire was the Mongol Invasion and the burning of MASSIVE libraries holding MILLIONS of books containing CENTURIES of of discoveries and technology, all lost in a matter of weeks. They say that the river first turned red with blood, then black with ink. Only 5% of the books survived being either thrown in the river or burned using fire.
Your argument on verse 2:191, the Meccan caravan raids were done because the Quraysh forced the Muslims out of Mecca, sold the property they left behind and invested it in caravans. The Muslims were forced to leave with not enough food and basic support. In turn, they raided the caravans belonging to the Quraysh. The Muslims attacked the Jews who barricaded themselves in a fort at the Battle of Khaybar because they were ganging up with local tribes to try and incite violence on the Islamic communities of Medina, when Muhammad (peace be upon him) heard about this: he decided that the only option was to attack them before they attack Him. You also forgot to put in the verse there that Quran Verse 2:193 also says: "But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except towards the oppressors."
About the Bible verse Matthew 5:39, you are focusing on the good verses of the bible and the bad verses of the Quran. Check out these verses from the Bible and see how much of a one-sider you are: Deuteronomy 13:6 (talks about how you are allowed to murder your own siblings if they secretly worship another God) along with other violent verses like Deutoronomy 13:13,17:3 and 2 chronicles 15:13 and of course there are many more...
Your argument on Quran Verse 3:151, remember that the Quran is a book filled with the messages that The angels sent to Muhammad (peace be upon him)... So when they say 'we', it actually means 'we' as in the Angels.
Your argument on Quran Verse 2:216, it is simply telling the disciples that fighting is imminent and to not run away when the enemy attacks you. It says that running away while the enemy attacks you is bad for you because you are losing land, your value and riches will be in the hands of the enemy and your wife and offspring might not be able to escape the enemy. Whilst, if you stay and fight, your family might have a chance at surviving and your property might fare a chance.
You must remember that the Hadiths were written 5 centuries after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and as I said there are ALOT of Hadiths that prove Aisha was 18 at the time of consummation. Take this Hadith Verse for example
(Mishkat Al Masabih, Vol.3, Pages 300-301): "She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, Wife of the Holy Prophet and was TEN YEARS OLDER than her. ... In 73AH. ...Asma died at the age of one hundred years," so, that must make Asma 28 years old at 1AH, therefore, making Aisha 18! Of course there is MUCH more evidence INCLUDING those gathered by Maulana Muhammad Ali that Aisha was not a child when she married Muhammad (peace be upon him)...
Still keeping in mind how LONG after Muhammad's (peace be upon him) death that the Hadiths are written. Now let us analyse what Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in this verse in Hadith (Sanan Dar Qatni, Vol.2, Imrani Abi Fusa, Matba Faruqi): "There is no doubt that Hadiths will be coming after me, claiming that I said things. So you must test those Hadiths to the Quran, if it is compatible with the Quran then only accept it." Now when we test this verse with the Quran, well, judging from verse: 18:29 ("Whoever wills LET them believe, whoever WILLS let them DISBELIEVE") along with Verses 2:256, 13:40, 16:125, 4:137 and 88:21-22, you can kinda' guess for yourself that ONE verse in the HADITH cannot change SIX verses in the QURAN...
About Quran Verse 2:222, I checked back and this verse isn't labelling menstruation a 'sickness', instead that it will be harmful for the woman to have 'sex' while they are on their period. If you check Sahih International or, this verse actually says: "And if they ask you about menstruation. Say, it is HARMFUL so..." Your
Translator translated 'harmful' into 'disease'. That is why you hear that in some cultures (including Islam), it is forbidden to have sex while women are on their period.
About Quran Verse 2:223, this is just a comparison. The Quran isn't implying that the woman IS DIRT! If the wife DOESN'T WANT to have intercourse with the husband because he is too harsh on her, then, she has the right to consent for a divorce. Like what Quran Verse 4:19 says: "Oh ye who believe, it is NOT LAWFUL for you to inherit women by compulsion. And treat her with HARSHNESS or take back her wedding money. ..." Means you are not allowed to use compulsion in ANYWAY to get your wife to do whatever YOU want."
On Quran Verse 2:228: Well YOU SHOULD submit to that interpretation because that is what it actually means! Check Sahih International or this website here: , you should stop being ignorant because you don't even know Arabic... All you know is the English translation of it...
On Quran Verse 2:6, that is exactly what a disbeliever means. At the time when Muhammad (peace be upon him) started teaching, a lot of people turned their backs and continued to commit atrocities, own slaves and e.t.c. So Muhammad (peace be upon him) called these people disbelievers and told his disciples to not bother warning them of the Hell Fire...
Your argument on Quran Verse 4:144, then all of those translators are wrong, for as I said in my last argument, the word used here is 'wali', if you don't believe me then go to google translate (English to Arabic) and type in 'friends' or 'allies' or something, then click on 'more translations' and 'wali' won't be appeared in any of them... In fact 'wali' is most used to describe a 'protector' or 'patron', not a 'friend...
Sam Harris is a liar and does not know anything about the Quran:
Words that come out of his mouth are the reason why Muslims are looked down upon, especially in America.
Again your lack of knowledge is what is making people not understand Islam,'jihad' means to 'struggle', even we normal Muslims believe in 'struggle' and there are three types of 'struggle' like the 'struggle of the self' (keeping clean, tidy and happy), the 'struggle of the mind' (having the right attitude) and the 'struggle of the sword' (defending the city), however, this is as Muhammad (peace be upon him) said the 'least important jihad'. So be careful of your word choices next time because this is actually offensive to a lot of Muslims. And again sir, you're being very one sided, when it comes to comparing the Bible with the Quran. Take a good look at these Bible Verses and see for yourself: .
I didn't say that the Land of Palestine was 100% peaceful, all I'm saying is that it was mainly peaceful during World War 2 and when it looked like peace was FINALLY going to be bestowed to the land, the Americans came in...
I didn't project that you said the biggest problem in Islam is 'rape'. You accuse the Quran for the rape problem that only ONE Islamic country is facing. Why not mention India? The real problem here is overcrowding, so rapists will be able to get away with a lot in crowded countries like Bangladesh. And anyway, Bangladesh doesn't even make it to the Top 10 on most rapes, in fact NO ISLAMIC COUNTRY DID! You'll be surprised to hear that even Canada is higher on rape crimes than Bangladesh: ...
You must understand that at the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him), the only way to stop poverty is by giving zakat (paying to the poor)... And no... Islam doesn't force women to marry and have babies.
Finally, I wasn't trying to convert this issue to U.S interventionism. All I was saying is that this kind of talk promotes 'misunderstandings' towards the Islamic community. I did say in the last paragraph that these 'fairy tales' are used to 'call to arms thousands of Americans'. It's the problem, actions like this woman's: And most famously Pastor Terry Jones, angers the Western public as well as The Islamic community causing a lot of misunderstanding and prompting the U.S to send troops to face angry Muslims in other countries...

Sorry for my late response, I was very busy lately... :)
Debate Round No. 2


64bithuman forfeited this round.


Pro has forfeited round 3, he has round 4 to try and refute con's argument in round 2. Best of luck! :) :) :)
Debate Round No. 3


64bithuman forfeited this round.


JustRushdi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My apologies to my opponent - I just don't have any time for this debate with school and work, etc. etc.


JustRushdi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Just gonna pop in here, If Islam didnt exist, wouldnt someone else just take its place? I mean sure get rid of one group, but because of the Absence of the conflict caused by that group someone else would take its place....
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Robert_Weiler// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: S&G was about even. Conduct, both parties forfeited two rounds, but it was pro who did so first, and later admitted he did not have the time to participated in the debate HE instigated. Arguments, Pro argued from a more logical, straightforward point of view, you could almost hear Cons arguments twisting the plain meaning of words to interpret the writings into things they did not say.

[*Reason for removal*] The RFD doesn't reference a single actual argument given in the debate. The whole argument point allocation could be posted on any debate and mean exactly as much as it did here. The voter must show that they read the debate and which arguments were relevant to their decision.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Yassine// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro's FF => Con's win. Arguments: Pro resorted to an unimaginable number of distortions, fallacies, lies & deceitfulness, he had to get penalised for this. For instance, "Slaughter those who don?t believe the same as you. Kill them until they convert." has no basis whatsoever, neither do this "Muhammad slaughtered and force converted people all over the Middle East in some 65 military campaigns. He enslaved children, raped women.."...etc. This whole debate is virtually all bare assertions & counter bare assertions. Anyone can make up stuff to support his point of view, the feat is in supporting the claims with actual evidence. Moreover, Pro failed to built a case into his resolution. Even if we assume Pro's arguments, that still wouldn't justify Pro's resolve that the World would be better off without Islam! Pro thus fails his BOP. Con didn't have the BOP. => Con's win. Sources: Pro used unreliable & unsupportive sources. Con used none. => Even.

[*Reasons for removal*] (1) The conduct vote should probably be clearer, as both sides forfeited 2 rounds, though it can be assumed that, since Pro forfeited first, the point goes to his opponent. (2) Much of the explanation for the arguments points does appear biased, and the voter should steer clear of statements like "Pro resorted to an unimaginable number of distortions, fallacies, lies & deceitfulness" unless those statements are made clearly in the debate itself. However, when the voter actually gets to examining the BoP and how to meet it, the explanation is sufficient. If it were just these two issues, this RFD would be sufficient.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
(3) The voter makes some strange generalizations about the sources, simply invalidating all of Pro's citations. This would be fine if the only result was the voter's decision not to award source points, but since his measure of BoP is entirely contingent on the sources, this decision does directly affect the decision plays out. The only assessment of BoP the voter mentions that doesn't involve sources is unclear; how do Pro's arguments, which focus on Islam's effects on the world, not link to the resolution about how the world would be better off without it? If the voter views Pro's sources as problematic, he has to do more than simply assert that Pro's sources are "unreliable & unsupportive", especially when Con's only arguing alternate interpretations.
Posted by 64bithuman 2 years ago
Sorry - I won't be able to finish this debate. I'm just way to busy with school starting up and moving etc etc.
Posted by JustRushdi 2 years ago
Never in my life have I witnessed an atheist forfeit a round in a debate...
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure not all Canadians hate America. There really isn't any good reason.
Posted by JustRushdi 2 years ago
QUICKLY! You got only 2 more hours left!
Posted by 64bithuman 2 years ago
Hey, hey, let's keep it civil. I'm arguing a point here, of course I'm not going to yield and admit you are right - just as I wouldn't expect you to.
Posted by JustRushdi 2 years ago
It's all true, and there's nothing you can do about it 64bithuman... &#128521;&#128521;&#128521;
No votes have been placed for this debate.