This House Asserts That ISIS Is Anti-Islamic!
Debate Rounds (4)
Resolved: This House Asserts That ISIS Is Anti-Islamic!
This is a simple enough debate, it seeks to establish whether or not ISIS the terrorist organisation is based on Islamic ideals (or represents Islam) or goes against Islamic teaching and belief. I should note that for this debate Islam is the religion as set out by the Quran, the Sunnah (the actions, writings, sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad), the 'Ijma (the consensus of scholars of Islam), Qiyas (analogy or extension of Quran, Sunnah or Ijma), and 'Urf (Islamic culture). It is NOT defined by a small minority of Muslims (though the argument from consensus may be made).
The burden of proof rests on the Proposition, but Opposition must explain their refutations and counter-claims, backing themselves up with evidence.
All translation of the Quran should be referenced to the Noble Quran website which has multiple translations (all the popular ones) however Arabic explanations of words are allowed. The website can be found here: http://quran.com...
By ISIS I obviously refer to the Islamic State of Iran and Levant.
Goodluck to whoever accepts!
Its as if I have lost the will to debate on this site, I don't know why but I just don't feel like writing out debate rounds. Hai hai hai. So please excuse me if my attempt below is not my best, I had to force myself to write it.
The method I will be using is proof by contradiction. My argument will be provided in logic below, and I will expound on it after.
1. If ISIS is Islamic then its values are represented or derived from Islam
2. If the values are represented in Islam they are derived from Islamic sources of law
3. The aforementioned values are not derived from sources of Islamic law
I. Therefore they are not represented in Islam
ii. Therefore ISIS is not Islamic
An important point in the burden of proof comes into play here. While I have to show that these values are not represented in Islam, and can give evidence contrary to ISIS' position, I cannot prove what does not exist. The burden then naturally comes to my opponent to show evidence of such values in Islam from Islamic sources of law (which have been mentioned in round one). If my opponent wishes to win this debate s/he must show proof of Islamic roots in ISIS' values.
This is ex ve termini and simply a tautology. This premise is the essence of the debate topic, and as it is proven ex ve termini I do not believe I need to expand on this. If my opponent agrees with this analytic connection I can then address his specific concern.
This is also ex ve termini and a tautology. Its obvious that if something is Islamic, we know it is Islamic because Islamic sources of law condone it. I also won't go and waste space expounding on this unless my opponent attacks it, as it is an analytic statement and self contradictory to deny.
Firstly I'd like to reiterate that this is not my burden to fulfill, rather my burden to defend. I cannot prove the non-existence of certain injunctions, and so I leave this to my opponent to do. S/he must show evidence of ISIS' Islamic foundations and it is my burden to attack his arguments.
Even so I have decided to give some positive material showing how ISIS has constantly gone against Islamic rulings and injunctions. We all know that ISIS has constantly forced an Islamic state down people's throats and forced people to accept Islam or face death. This goes against the Quran which clearly says: 'There shall be no compulsion in religion' (2:25) It also says 'Say, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification."' (24:57). This clearly shows that even the Messenger of Allah only had the duty to invite and exhort pepople to the faith, not to compel them. A similar order is given in 88:21,22 and 64:12.
ISIS forces people to accept Islam when the Quran expressly forbids it, and lays the duty of the Muslim to this point alone: to invite and encourage, not to force or compel. In fact that has been forbidden in Islam. As to those who doubt Islam, the Quran gives this direction in 62:25,26: 'They say: "When will this promise (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) come to pass? if you are telling the truth.' to which it says in the next verse (26): 'Say (O Muhammad SAW): "The knowledge (of its exact time) is with Allah only, and I am only a plain warner."'. Again the role of a warner, of a notifier is exemplified not that of a terrorist.
What about deals and treaties with non-Muslims? The Holy Prophet always tried to find peaceful solutions and made treaties with Arab pagans, with Christians and Jews. These treaties were so strict that the Holy Prophet says: Whoever kills a person who has a truce with the Muslims will never smell the fragrance of Paradise. He also says: 'Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” This is clear evidence of how much the Prophet defended the rights of minorities and non-Muslims.
In fact Islam actually protects monastries and other places of worship. The Quran in 22:40 states that Allah protects monastries and churches and other such religious institutions. If this is not enough one can read the covenants of the Holy Prophet with the Christians.
In any case the above evidence clearly shows that ISIS is unIslamic.
just as values derived from the words of Jesus are Christian.
I extend all arguments.
I extend arguments further.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was entirely dropped by Con, who failed to make a case of his own except for a single sentence each round, which failed to negate. Ergo, I vote Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.