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

islam is more violent than chrisitanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,009 times Debate No: 61779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




islam is more violent than chrisitanity/judaism

this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

for some of the verses and the link to the above quote see the following link:

the old testament was violent. then Jesus came and said things like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". and "turn your cheek". and people generally view Jesus's death as a pacification of God's wrath such that violence is not necessary anymore, and generally violence isn't seen as necessary any more.
islam still has commands for violence that doesn't have someone like Jesus standing in the way to stop them.


1- Acceptance

I accept this debate, and thank my opponent for his proposal.

2- Burden of proof

The burden of proof to prove the resolution is on my opponent, meaning that I am only obligated with a burden of rebuttal, in which I respond to my opponent's arguments. However, I am free to provide arguments and evidence for statements that contradicts the debate's resolution.

My opponent has to prove that the religion of Islam is potentially more violent than the religion of Christianity in their teachings.

For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the translations: Sahih International and the New International Version for the Quran and the bible respectively unless stated otherwise. Some longer sets of verses will be directly referred to through a link to provide writing characters.

3- Definitions

a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

4- Rebuttal

4a- Quranic verses

My opponent stated: "The Quran contains at least 109 verses call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule". I ask my opponent to clarify what he means by "war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule" and provide evidence for this statement. Your statement seems to contradict:

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? (Quran 10:99)

I believe the verses my opponent was referring to in his argument were:

There is no encouragement to start violence, but to suppress and respond to it. Fitnah means affliction, tumult, and discord. (1, p.81) Thus, Islam is not actively seeking violence. The verses states: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors", and "But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors".


These verses refers to the battle of Badr and addresses to those who acted adversely toward Muslims. It is illogical to instruct Muslims to sip tea while they are about to get butchered.

The same Sura states:
And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. (Quran 8:61)

And yes, the Quran forbids cowardice and encourages courage. An argument against cowardice can be found in An-Nisa' (Sura 4). A part of it is:

And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (Quran 4:75)


This refers to the hostile polytheists who broke the peace treaty, Muslims had every right to fight back. Furthermore, the verses grants sanctuary to polytheists who seeks protection.


I ask my opponent to clarify what he means by "slaughter".

"I advise you ten things Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 21, Number 10)

4b- Christianity comparison

My opponent acknowledges that the old testament is violent, and extremely violent I might add. Here are a few highlights:

I am bewildered by my opponent's claim that the "atrocities" of the OT isn't "necessary" anymore. Well, I ask him to bring me one verse that states that following the OT is a sin. In fact, practicing and teaching the OT is encouraged:

Matthew 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This can be considered a concession of the debate by my opponent.

My opponent then provides verses that shows that Jesus didn't condemn adultery punishment by hypocrites. This is contradictory since Jesus is going to torture who commit adultery and kill their children too:

Revelation 2:22-23
22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

He then mentions turning the other cheek, other instructions include:

Matthew :41-42
And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Mark 9:42-47
42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

this means that Christianity encourages self-harm and self-victimisation, and thus encourages violence from others and on self. Islam is superior in this aspect:

And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Quran 2:195)

Also, my opponent implies that Jesus came to bring peace and love, which is false.

Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Luke 14:25-26
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

In fact, Jesus is going to execute all who oppose him, which leads to massive bloodshed and violence.

Luke 19:27
27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’

5- References

Debate Round No. 1


con's bible verses do not indicate violence from christians.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant ca


I thank my opponent for his argument. Although I must express my dissappointment with his lack of rebuttal; until then I must assume that he concedes the dropped points.

1- Rebuttal

1a-Violence from Christians

My opponent states: "con's bible verses do not indicate violence from christians". However, that is irrelevant for the debate. I don't believe I need to bring historical examples like "Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own", for there is nothing condemning them in the bible.

Matthew 5:17-18
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 23:1-3
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

The New Testament in no way abolishes the Old Testament. Thus my opponent needs to demonstrate that the teaching of Islam is more violent than the teaching of the bible, which includes:

Psalm 137:8-9
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

2 Chronicles 15:13
13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.

Furthermore, my opponent did not respond to the prophecized massacare on all nations and it's inhabitants (Yes that includes children) that do not follow Jesus.

Psalm 149
May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,
9 to carry out the sentence written against them—
this is the glory of all his faithful people.
Praise the Lord.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

1b- Quranic verses

According to Hans Wehr's dictionary, which I believe to be the standard Arabic-English dictionary, Fitna means:
temptation, trial;charm, charmingness, attractiveness; enchantment captivation, fascination, enticement, temptation; infatuation; intrigue; sedition, riot, discord, dissension, civil strife (1)

Although the Quran did use the former meanings (trial), it also used the later meanings:

{101} And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you. Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.
{102} And when you are among them and lead them in prayer, let a group of them stand [in prayer] with you and let them carry their arms. And when they have prostrated, let them be [in position] behind you and have the other group come forward which has not [yet] prayed and let them pray with you, taking precaution and carrying their arms. Those who disbelieve wish that you would neglect your weapons and your baggage so they could come down upon you in one [single] attack. But there is no blame upon you, if you are troubled by rain or are ill, for putting down your arms, but take precaution. Indeed, Allah has prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.
(Quran 4:101-102)

As you can see the word "tempt" would not make sense. Therefore, your balatant accusation of dishonesty, a serious claim, is unfounded.

Zalim according to Hans Wehr means:
unjust, unfair, iniquitous, turannical, oppressing; tyrant, oppressor; offender, transgressor, sinner (2)

Furthermore, my opponent's statement is contradictory when stating that Muslims begin fighting when the verses he quoted includes:
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. Agnd if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. (Quran 4:90)

My opponent also attempts to imply that Meccans were peaceful (Battle of the Trench anyone?). This is a weird claim considering their torture sessions toward Muslims, 3 year starvation-inducing boycott, and forcing Muslims to leave their properities and belongings before leaving Mecca due to violence and hatred. The caravan raid he mentioned accumulated the Muslim property and income left behind in Mecca, thus the Muslims were justified to take their property back.

2- Burden of proof

My opponent has not demonstrated his claim that the religion of Islam is potentially more violent than the religion of Christianity in their teachings, thus the burden of proof has not been carried by Pro thus far. Furthermore, Pro has not responded to arguments that contradicts his resolution.

3- Sources

Debate Round No. 2




Dragonfang, from the D to the G.

Pro did not offer much objection to my arguments demonstrating a significantly larger acts of violence and unneccessary bloodshed from the Christian teachings, and neither does Pro deny them. Therefore that is efficently a concession; my opponent has not lived up to his burden of proof regarding the resolution.

I believe it is, by all means, reasonable to conclude that Christianity is more violent than Islam judging by the content of this debate, and Pro being unable to hold the assertion presented that Islam is more violent than Christianity.

I thank Pro for this debate and wish her well.

[{Vote Con}]
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
nice dragons in last round bro.
Posted by Dragonfang 2 years ago

1- If God doesn't exist, then evil doesn't exist.
2- Evil exists.
C: Therefore, God exists.

Lol. There is no "Atheist science", and from what I observed, Atheists barely use logic and valid arguments.
Posted by WorldWar2Debator 2 years ago
This is very stupid indeed.

Christianity is stupid. Why believe in a fat man in the sky above the clouds, watching over us like a child molester. I don't give a cr*p what people say, Jesus was fake, the Christianity beliefs are stupid and they are tyrants and fascists. I, as an atheist, was tossed into a church by a Christian Nazi, who forced me in.

Islam is also stupid. WTF is with Isis? "Oh, I rape these schoolgirls for Allah!" "I slaughter innocent people for Allah!" "I do EVERYTHING for Allah!" God, so stupid they would go to all lengths to a man equal to God: non-existent, all powerful and retarded. Honestly, where has humanity gone?

Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
this debate is stupid.
neither Christianity nor Islam have the characteristics enabling them to be Violent.
they are philosophies. and as such, only the people are violent. The actions of one man does not represent those of many, nor do the actions of many represent the one.
neither Christianity nor Islam are violent. Extremists within each group may be however,
but those individuals would only be considered violent if they actually surpass the very distinct boundaries of what it means to worship their All-merciful God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically forfeited her last round, Con had better sources and his spelling was better.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: We see a huge lack of rebuttals from pro, especially in the last round