Which is truest to the Muslim Faith? ISIS (yes) or Moderates (no)?
I shall be arguing that ISIS is truer to the Quran than Moderate Muslims, and the Contender will be arguing the opposite.
First, though, a couple rules:
1. No foul language
2. No ad hominem arguments or slander
Now, my opening argument:
It has recently come to my attention that, despite the massive number of apologists who will tell you otherwise, that Islam is the religion of submission, not peace.
The Quran, the Muslim's Holy book, proclaims the slaughter of everyone who refuses to convert. This behavior (along with many other atrocities sanctioned by the Quran) is very clearly demonstrated by the extreme acts of ISIS, while Moderate Muslims, say those living in the US, would never be allowed to behave this way. In the Islamic State, as the territory claimed by ISIS is known, medieval style executions of homosexuals and non-Muslims are quite common. Now, I ask you, are said executions brought about by Muslims who are US citizens? I think not. However, the Quran demands the above executions, so clearly ISIS is following the example of Allah, instead of cherrypicking parts of their Book, as the Moderate Muslims do.
Ince again, I'd like to have a serious debate, with no ad hominems. I'd rather not be called an Islamaphobe for showing that a terrorist organization follows Islam closer than Moderates do. It's the fault of the religion, not me.
I thank Pro for instigating the debate. Best of luck.
1. The moderate approach > Con.
2. ISIS’s approach > Pro.
* “The best of matters are those situated in the middle” (i.e. “Following the middle path is a the best option”) the Prophet (pbuh). 
* “O people, beware of extremism in religious matters for those who came before you were doomed because of exaggeration in religious matters.” the Prophet (pbuh). 
- Reason & Revelation.
- Spiritual & Material.
- Faith & Action.
- Mercy & Justice.
- Fatalism & Individualism.
- Individualism & Collectivism.
- Freedom & Responsibility.
- Tradition & Innovation.
- Rights & Dues.
* “Every child is born in the state of Fitrah (equal among all mankind)” the Prophet (pbuh) .
* “Humans are equal, like a set of a tooth-comb” “there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety” the Prophet .
* "Verily we have honoured/dignified the Children of Adam (Mankind)." (17:70) [*].
* “A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. He should neither deceive him nor lie to him, nor leave him without assistance. Everything belonging to a Muslim is inviolable for a Muslim; his honour, his blood and property.” the Prophet .
* ”The believers in their mutual kindness, compassion and sympathy are just like one body. When one of the limbs suffers, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever” the Prophet .
i. That it is a divine decree to which God predestined Mankind:
* ”And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ." (11:117) [*].
ii. That this divine decree must be accepted in submission to God's Will:
* ”And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?" (10:99) [*].
* ”So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them." (88:21-22) [*].
iii. That this decree must extend to our practice the same way it is ordained in our belief:
* ”There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) [*].
* “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve.” “ (18:29) [*].
i. Each person is responsible & accountable only for his own beliefs & actions:
* ”Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." (17:15) [*].
ii. The best Muslims can do is remind non-Muslims, without transgressing that limit:
* ”So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them.” (88:21-22) [*].
* “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious” (16:125) [*].
iii. Only God has the final say between Muslims & Non-Muslims & that is beyond the Human's scope:
* ”Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ." (22:69) [*].
i. Justice, Mercy & Kindness must prevail in dealing with non-Muslims who are not hostile towards Muslims:
* "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity." (60:8) [*].
ii. Justice in self-defence & Patience must prevail in dealing with hostile non-Muslims:
* “Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (60:9).
* “So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (2:194).
* "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient". (16:126).
* * “The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” the Prophet .
* “He will enter Heaven only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind.” the Prophet .
* "Do not take any living creature as a target.” the Prophet .
* “There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” the Prophet .
* "There was a dog moving around a well whom thirst would have killed, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” the Prophet .
* "Eat and drink from the provision of Allah , and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." (2:60) [*].
* "If anyone cuts a tree (with no just cause), Allah brings him headlong into Hell.” the Prophet .
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)
Which I then follow up with a connected verse:
" Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know." (Qur'an 2:216)
So, then, the word of Allah clearly proclaims the (holy) fighting against non-Muslims. This is a behavior we've clearly seen from ISIS, while, once again, moderate Muslims are willing to ignore.
While one could argue that "fight" meant in a non-violent manner in the first verse, this next one should clarify things a bit:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Qur'an 8:39)
So, this all implies the Muslim domination of the world, something moderate Muslims aren't actively fighting (waging jihad) for.
As for your specific arguments:
1. "Moderation in Everything":
If the Qur'an itself teaches its followers to wage war against non-believers, surely such holy say isn't considered "extreme". That's only the view of the Western World. What may be acceptable for one People may not be for another.
2. "Islam teaches Equality amongst Mankind":
I'll start this one off by rebutting your second point. The verse you quote simply claims that the only superiority one man can have over another is a difference in piety. "Piety" is the key word there. Coupled with the verses I've already quoted, this clearly means that nonbelievers are clearly inferior beings, for they have no piety whatsoever. Now I'll rebut your first point with a another verse:
"Allah commands you as regards your children's (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females..." (Qur'an 4:11)
Is this promotion of "equality" among mankind? It seems to me like women are treated as inferiors. ISIS does a great job of keeping these inferiors in their place, but, sadly, Muslim women in America have rights.
3. "Essential Dignity for all members of the human race":
I quoted several verses from the Qur'an in my introduction which address this argument, but I'll restate my rebuttal for clarity: The Word of Allah clearly demands jihad (holy war) against all nonbelievers. As this war is demanded by Allah, a perfect being, it therefore follows that nonbelievers are unholy (evil), and must either be "subdued" or made to worship Allah. This isn't respect for all of the "Children of Adam", this is genocide. Once again, the good folks of ISIS are always eager to demonstrate this aspect of Islam, while moderate Muslims do not.
4. "The Qur'an decrees difference in Religion amongst Mankind":
No one's doubting the Qur'ans acknowledgement of other religions, it merely commands the destruction of them. My introduction fairly rebuts this argument, so I'll say no more.
5. "Islam teaches mercy for all beings":
The only argument in this section I feel I need to directly rebut is the first. I shall do so with four consecutive verses from the Qur'an:
"These two opponents (believers and disbelievers) dispute with each other about their Lord; then as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling water will be poured down over their heads.
With it will melt or vanish away what is within their bellies, as well as (their) skins.
And for them are hooked rods of iron (to punish them).
Every time they seek to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be driven back therein, and (it will be) said to them: 'Taste the torment of burning!'" (Qur'an 22:19-22)
This treatment, specially reserved for nonbelievers, doesn't appear to be softened by mercy. Your verse under "1. For All", then, clearly doesn't apply to nonbelievers, and so is completely irrelevant to this debate.
Overall, these verses are more aimed towards fellow Muslims than their idolatrous kin.
I'll end off on this note: I'm not an expert on Islam, and I don't pretend to be. So, if you feel I've misquoted any part of the Qur'an, or anything of the like, feel free to point out my mistake, and I'll make sure to correct it in the future.
1. Pro dropped the bulk of my arguments!
2. Pro has yet to offer any reliable sources.
I. Proper reading & understanding of the Qur’an is essential:
- The textual & circumstantial context of verses in the Qur’an is necessary for a proper understanding. Consider for instance this passage from the French Constitution: “Anarchy is a frightening but necessary passage, and the only moment when one can establish a new order of things” . Not understanding the textual & circumstantial context of such passages is a serious impairment to the Constitution that contains them as whole, in this example, the consequences could be devastating!
=> Interpreting the Qur’an without proper qualification & proper authority is too unpredictable & whimsical. Especially, since it may lead to groups like ISIS.
II. The Qur’an makes clear distinction between hostile non-Muslims & peaceful non-Muslims
1. The verses laying the ground rules to deal with peaceful & non-peaceful unbelievers are verses (60:8) & (60:9) (rf. Round-1, IV. 3.).
=> As stated in R-1, the distinction is unequivocally clear! Which Pro fails to address.
2. The Qur’an forbids initiating hostilities, ordains fighting only in self-defence, & urges peace:
* “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you (1) but do not transgress (2). Verily, Allah does not like transgressors (3). And kill them (those who fight you) wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you (4), for persecution is worse than slaughter. but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque (5), unless they (first) fight you there (6); but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (7). And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression (8), and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility (9) except to those who practise oppression (10).” (2:190-193) [*].
=> As the verses dictate, from (1) through (10), transgression is prohibited & fighting is only allowed against those who initiate the persecution, until they cease. If they do, then peace is to be favoured.
=> ISIS are clearly contradicting these fundamental Qur’anic directives.
III. Muslim scholars across the world have refuted ISIS:
- Examples of such initiatives can be seen in the Open Letter to ISIS , issued & signed by hundreds of the foremost Islamic authorities in the world.
=> This distinct stance of Muslim scholars is clear evidence that ISIS is going against traditional Islam.
- Context: “this verse has been revealed to sanction the campaign of Tabuk”  when the rulers of Ghasan were preparing to attack the Muslims in Medina year 9H:
* Narrated Umar: “[. . .] and at that time we dreaded a king of Ghassan. It was mentioned to us that he intended to attack us, and our minds were haunted by him.” .
=> It is clear from the context that the verse is sanctioned against hostile non-Muslims.
- Two questions arise:
i. Against whom is fighting prescribed? Believers? Infidels? Aliens? Animals?!…
ii. & with what? Pillows? Potatoes? Weapons? Brains?!…
=> Without context, the verse could mean nothing, or anything!
- Context: the verse is revealed in the same context as the previously mentioned verse (22:39-40) [*], “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah.” “, i.e. for self-defence .
- Contrary to what Pro wishes to insinuate, this verse & (9:29) are unrelated, as they were revealed 4 to 9 years apart.
- Pro’s version is charged with interpretations not existing in the original verse. A literal translation should read: “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” [*].
- Context: the verse is in the middle of an entire chapter dedicated to the battle of Badr, its preludes & aftermaths. Within this same range of verses:
* “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.” (8:61) [*].
=> As the context indicates, & as established above, fighting is sanctioned to prevent persecution & to achieve peace.
- Moderation is a fundamental principal to Islam, a more moderate muslim is, by definition, a truer muslim. Thus, Pro’s contention is incoherent from the outset! Which means I win the resolution by default.
- Strawman! Superiority in “Piety” evidently refers to benefits in the Afterlife, not this Life, which is our only subject of discussion. This, however, is irrelevant to the stated Equality in Humanity. Being inferior in Piety does not entail being inferior in Humanity. Example:
* “a bier passed before the Prophet (pbuh) and he stood up. He was told that the dead man was a Jew. Upon this he remarked: “Was he not a human being or did he not have a soul?!” “ .
=> Being an unbeliever does not diminish one’s humanity or one’s dignity.
- Already thoroughly addressed. Pro’s entire argument here is bare assertion.
- The verse, obviously, refers specifically to children (full-siblings), NOT all males & all females.
- The very next verse reads: “And if a man or woman leaves neither ascendants nor descendants but has a brother or a sister, then for each one of them is a sixth.” (4:12) [*].
=> Meaning, in cases of half-siblings, they get the same shares.
- The distribution of Inheritance in Islamic Law is indifferent to gender. It rather recongnises 3 rules :
i. The closer in kinship one is, the more one gets.
ii. The younger the generation one belongs to, the more one gets.
iii. The more financial burden one has, the more one gets.
=> The male is responsible, by law, for the charge of his wife, children, mother, daughter, sister… Whereas, the female is exempt from any such responsibility, not even for herself.
=> In cases where all the 3 elements are similar (such as for half-siblings), males or females, they all get the same share.
- Moreover, in Islamic Inheritance Law, there are 6 quotas of inheritance :
=> In short, ~78% of quotas go to females. Thus, Pro’s whole argument is senseless!
- Finally, Islam explicitly prescribes Equity of Genders:
* “Verily, Women are but the equivalent of Men. Those honourable among men will honour them, and those ignoble among men will dishonour them” the Prophet, also articulated into: “Women are the counter-part of Men” .
* “And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable” (2:228) [*].
- Pro’s contention here contradicts his assumption. If the Qur’an ordains that there shall be different religion, then that would naturally contradict Pro’s claim of it commanding their destruction!
- Strawman. Pro is resorting to aspects of the Afterlife to conclude on about this Life! This reasoning is quite silly. Also, the Hadith clearly states “all people”, it doesn’t distinguish between believer or not.
"Overall, these verses are more aimed towards fellow Muslims than their idolatrous kin."
- I don’t know! I am PRETTY SURE “mankind” includes Muslims & non-Muslims alike, & this “Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion” or this “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious” (& the others) plainly refer to unbelievers!
 http://goo.gl... p198
 Bayan al-Islam vol18 p224-254
 http://goo.gl... / http://goo.gl...
FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
Before I get to my closing round, I noticed that I had some source references mixed up in my previous rounds. Specifically, the previous listing  – , should be replaced by the following listing  – :
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => void.
 => void.
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
 => 
=> Pro completely ignored this point thus making his case about ISIS’s alleged understanding of Scripture even less credible.
=> Pro’s contentions against these clear scriptural texts are mere equivocation & straw-man, as shown previously.
=> There is just so much manifest & pretty strait-forward passages Pro chose to ignore in favour of strawman arguments & generalisations based on other ambiguous passages grossly taken out of context! Ironically, this proves my previous point of which qualification is essential for any proper understanding.
=> Pro has completely ignored this very very crucial point, for knowing this distinction alone may clear up all Pro’s misinterpretations relating to the Qur’an allegedly sanctioning the killing of non-Muslims! Instead, Pro opted for bare assertions! Now, the text on which Islam is based plainly says: “deal justly and kindly” or “argue in a way that is best” (with peaceful non-Muslims), yet Pro boldly professes: “these verses are more aimed towards fellow Muslims than their idolatrous kin.”!
=> Pro discarded all the points I made about Mercy, used a strawman involving the Afterlife in an attempt to deprive non-Muslims from the Mercy Islam plainly decrees in their favour. In doing so, Pro has made his position much harder to prove. If Islam claims that cutting a tree, burning ants or tormenting a cat can lead one to Hell Fire, it would be hard to swallow how it would simultaneously claim that killing & torturing peaceful human beings is not just allowed, but also obligatory!!! This was a particularly hard case against Pro, his position had to appear inconsistent.
=> Pro did not address this point at all.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|