The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

islamic societies against human rights

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,889 times Debate No: 19829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




1) you can convert to islam but you cannot leave islam.Those who leave islam are liable to prosecution (mostly death penalty)in accordance with quran.

2) Islam prohibits music and arts.The only music permitted is drum beats

3) islam prohibits freedom of clothing.

4) Questioning islam or the prophet can lead to blasphemy and results in death penalty.

5) Any woman suspected of indulging in adultery,extra marital affairs is liable to be stoned to death or else lashes in her back.


Con challenged me to this debate. My position is that Islamic Law is not against human rights. Islamic societies will be ideally defined. I do not believe that there are real Islamic societies today, just Muslim majority countries.


Islamic Law: the body of doctrines that regulate the lives of those who profess Islam, and: the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed. [1]

Basic human needs: shelter, clothing, and food. This is agreed upon by the Islamic scholars, based on the following statement of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): "The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water. [Tirmidhi collection of hadith.] A traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is food (including water), shelter, and clothing. [2] [3]

Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. [4]


Con claims that you can freely convert to Islam, but not apostatize. He further claims that this is with accordance to the Qur'an. That's untrue. The Qur'an nowhere speaks of punishment for apostasy. There is a whole chapter dedicated to freedom of religion (109, The Disbelievers). In addition to this, verses promoting freedom of religion are scattered heavily throughout the Qur'an. Thus, my opponent's claim is as wrong as possible. "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." [5]

Con claims that the punishment for apostasy is the death penalty. The ruling on apostasy has caused many debates between Muslims scholars since the death of the Prophet. There are disagreements on whether an apostate should be punished in all circumstances, or only if he apostatizes by committing acts which resemble those of ancient Jews in Medina, who repeatedly apostatized in order to wreck Islam. However, it is agreed that even if the legal ruling on an apostate is that he should be executed, repentance must always be an option.

The most correct ruling is that people who pretend to convert to Islam, then pretend like they apostatize, and thus repeat this act in order to mock Islam and destroy it, should be put to death. Islamic history most probably supports this ruling. 14 centuries back, Jews in Medina often pretended like they became Muslims, then apostatized over and over again. The Prophet therefore said that whoever forsakes the Muslims - by leaving his religion - should be put to death. This is due to the following reasons:

  1. Muslims were under heavy oppression from Jews and Pagans. What united them was Islam, and being a Muslim back then meant that one had a permanent contract with the Muslim government, so that Islam could stand strong against its enemies.
  2. Because Jews made apostasy a more severe crime than it was (only theologically), Muslims had to deal with it by prohibiting it by law. This ensured that false Muslims could be distinguished from true Muslims, otherwise the entire nation of Muslims would never have been united against the non-Muslim oppressors.

Thus, it is ultimately clear that the ruling on apostates is not simply a matter of punishment. The history proves that it should be applied only against those who try to destroy Islam, and as a last resort (i.e., if there is no other way to unite Muslims against heavy oppression).

Con further claims that Islam prohibits music and arts. This is untrue to a great extent. Muslims all across the world today embrace music as well as other forms of art. Most notably, Muslims made inventions in medieval ages that are related to music. I believe what Con refers to is the Islamic prohibition for Muslims to draw images of animate beings for unnecessary purposes. This is true, but that is a very small part of art. Moreover, in an Islamic society, non-Muslims would not be forbidden from drawing animate beings. [6]

Music would not be prohibited in an Islamic state. Muslims scholars are in disagreement over the ruling, hence an Islamic state would only be justified in letting every man pick his own path in this regard. Moreover, Islam does not necessarily prohibit music. There's no prohibition of music in the Qur'an. In the two most authentic hadith collections (i.e., Sahih Bukhari/Muslim), there is a spot where music is mentioned alongside fornication and adultery in a negative manner. However, the hadith that mentions music in Sahih Bukhari as something prohibited is considered inauthentic, as it is not a part of the numbered hadith.

To quote the Islamic orator, Shabir Ally: "As you noted there is no such in the Quran on this subject. As for the hadith, although some texts have been advanced in this regard, as far as I am aware none of them are authentic. Hence we cannot on this basis declare music to be forbidden. On the other hand, we can look at the content, effects, and associations related to various sorts of music and form an opinion of them on that basis, though such a formulation of opinion will not have the force of a clear textual ruling. Some music have clearly bad content, others clearly good, yet others somewhere in between." [7]

Con says that Islam prohibits freedom of clothing. This is true to an extent. Islam prohibits men and women from dressing immodestly by religious terms. This doesn't mean that an Islamic society should go as far as to punish men and women who sometimes happen not to follow every single rule. Islam is against such aggressive use of law. What would be prohibited is most likely that men and women display their bodies in public in such a way that it is considered nudity. However, Con will have a tough time explaining how this goes against human rights, especially considering how most Western countries have these laws.

Con claims that questioning Islam or its holy figures leads to death penalty. This is untrue. Islam permits people having different opinions, and thus blasphemy is not avoidable. For instance, the Qur'an claims that Christians blaspheme when they compare Jesus (peace be upon him) to God. However, the Qur'an gives them the right to do so, because this is a matter of religion and belief. As much as a Muslim has the right to claim that the Bible is not the word of God, a Christian has the right to claim that the Qur'an is not the word of God.

"In an Islamic State, all non-Muslims will have the same freedom of conscience, of opinion, of expression (through words spoken and written) and of association as the one enjoyed by the Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitation as are imposed by law on the Muslims. Within those limitations, they will be entitled to criticise the government and its officials, including the Head of the State. They will also enjoy the same rights of criticizing Islam as the Muslims will have to criticize their religion." [8]

There'll be more. Resolution negated.









Debate Round No. 1


dontoo forfeited this round.


Mirza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


i think it is islam that has given all these muslims the idea of death penalty for blasphemy and all.

again with the prohibition music and arts the religion is something that stands in the way of disagreement

again many muslim organizations declare fatwa against people recently veena malik was issued a fatwa by some muslim
cult . (i know u might disagree withe meaning of fatwa and all)

i most islamic countries apostasy is dealt with death penalty like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Congo, Malaysia, Tanzania, Nigeria.

its is a fact that islam as influenced these countries in abiding to thee practices .


Con forfeited the previous round, which is a loss of conduct. I refrained from posting any arguments because I had no obligation to do so. In addition to this, Con did not respond to my arguments at all. Nor did he cite sources for anything.

Con has no sound response to my defense of music and arts. I said that music would most likely not be prohibited, and definitely not wholly prohibited. I said that arts has been a part of the Islamic World throughout centuries. In fact, even today I hardly know of a Muslim country that fully prohibits music. Somalia and other such countries do not count. Their politics have nothing to do with Islam.

Con claims that a Muslim organization made a fatwa (i.e., a religious opinion) that someone should be put to death for apostatizing. Again, this in no way has a relation to Islamic societies in general, especially not to Islamic Law itself.

Con argues that certain Islamic countries have death penalty laws against apostasy. However, he cites absolutely no sources. For example, he mentions Malaysia among such countries that prohibit changing your religion. But, Malaysia has freedom of religion as an inherent part of its constitution. Malaysia has different so-called states, and each deal with apostasy differently. I hardly find evidence that there's punishment as harsh as the death penalty.

Con makes an unsupported assertion that Islam has influenced all these Muslim-majority societies to be like they are. This is untrue. While Islam plays a role, there are far too many factors to simply narrow it down to blaming Islam. If one goes to India, he'd see Muslims abiding by the caste system. This has nothing to do with Islam, rather Hinduism. But, Muslim outside India have no support for the caste system. This shows a completely cultural influence on Muslims. In Pakistan, honor killings take place. In Bosnia and Turkey, they hardly ever existed.

Con has failed to explain how Islamic societies, in general, go against human rights. I agree that they are corrupt and often failing, but Con has not explained how some bad laws make all these societies go against human rights as a whole. He doesn't even have sources. And Egypt has about 15 million Christians - none were forced to become Muslims.

Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dontoo 6 years ago
mirza i was talking about the realities thats happening in those countries . you evaded most of my points as pointed out .
you were representing non existing islam societies .
i was talking of apostasy and u were talking of forced conversion .
hear what this muslim says .
Posted by airmax1227 6 years ago
I feel your pain Mirza. Ideological voting is a serious and unfortunate problem on DDO. Though I often don't agree with your point of view, if ever there was an obvious winner of a debate, this is one that I could confidently point to.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
wiploc, How can you say that his statements were not challenged? I refuted every single one of them. You claimed that I argued what Islam really stands for rather than what some countries make it look like. This is perfectly relevant. Con claimed that it is the fault of Islam that these countries are bad - my response was a perfectly relevant one.

Con's main challenge was that in certain countries, you cannot change to another religion if you're a Muslim. I said that in many of the countries, you can. In any case, this doesn't mean that there are general human rights violations. In all the countries he listed, freedom of religion is existent.

I refuted his point that Islamic countries prohibit music and arts. Go visit them.

Freedom of clothing is a non-issue in many of the countries he mentioned. And talking about human rights, we clearly speak of what is generally known to be a human right. Freedom of clothing is not fully free in mostly countries. Nor is it in Islamic countries. Where did Con win the point?

Questioning Islam does not necessarily lead to any penalty. I mentioned 15 million Christians in Egypt. They blaspheme according to Islam just about every day by going to church and worshiping Jesus. They still have the right to do so.

Con's point about adultery I would've refuted later, but he forfeited. That's his problem.

And you gave no source or conduct point to me, even though Con forfeited and cited no single source whatsoever.

Talk to me about voter bias.
Posted by dontoo 6 years ago
mirza you dint respond to my claims as well .
you are claiming that none of my claims have anything to do with Islamic societies then what according to you is a islamic society .
i addressed the fact that islam has influenced those acts i mentioned .
Posted by dontoo 6 years ago
thanks for accepting the challen. i am new here so be nice ok :D
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Voting period more than three days, and I'd like to argue for Islamic Law, not current so-called Islamic states.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 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 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is not a statement. Pro and Con seem to be reversed. Needlessly confusing. Con lists ways in which Islam oppresses. These are not challenged. Victory: Con. Pro's case consists of saying that real existent Islam may oppress, but her fantasized perfect version of Islam would not. That is not a refutation. That's like saying that the U.S. didn't invade Iraq since a fantasy U.S. wouldn't have. Con points out that, in actuality, Islam oppresses.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails on his BOP to show Islamic societies/law are/is against human rights. Con makes no argument that Pro is unable to rebut, and additionally cites no sources. All criteria clearly favors Pro.