Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#4029
Islam is a peaceful religion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Well, it's been a while since I have debated, I think like a month or two. Anyway, this debate is about Islam being a peaceful religion. If anyone cannot see that, then they are mistaken.
I prefer voters to have no bias attached.
I am for Islam being a peaceful religion.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I welcome my opponent to this debate.
Islam
Islam is a monotheistic religion which was founded by Muhammed (PBUH) in the 7th Century, but that does not mean he was the first Muslim. We believe that Jesus, Abraham, Adam and all other Prophets were also Muslims because they submitted their will to the creator. Islam is one of the most peaceful religions contrary to what people think and say. Obviously there has been a lot of movements against Islam such as the EDL (English Defence League), Crusader Expedition and others all to try and shut down the religion. However, most of the general public have not given into these groups irrational thinking.
Realistically, I can explain why Islam is a peaceful religion, and I will a bit more, however I will also let the scripture do the talking.
5:32- 'whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely'
5:32- 'And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely'
These 2 quotes clearly explain that if one murders unjustly, then the deed will be as bad as one who murders the entirety of mankind. And whoever saves one, the deed is as good as if he has saved the entirety of mankind. This demonstrates that violence without justice is completely wrong.
There is also a very important quote which is shown below.
2:190- Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.
Islam promotes self defence, the idea that a Muslim should only attack once the enemy attacks first. This will probably be one of the biggest things to come up again and again if my opponent keeps on bringing quotes out of context, I am just warning the voters now, in the first round. I will address nearly everything, but if he brings something up a lot of times with no real conviction, I will simply move on and take the advantage.
The idea of self defence is also in correlation to the Holy War Criteria. This is a set of rules the Muslim army must follow in order to go to battle. I will list them below.
1. Muslims must not attack first, the enemy should and then it is lawful to defend yourselves
2. In war, plants nor animals nor wildlife should be harmed
3. In war, children and women should not be killed unjustly
4. A war must be lead by a religious leader
5. Innocent people must not be harmed
These 5 things will dismantle nearly every argument that Con brings to the table. Violence without reason is a highly prohibited act to carry out.
There will obviously be a mention of terrorist groups that Con will bring up such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. I will say this now, we are talking about Islam, not individuals who interpret things differently without context within Islam. One thing which the Muslim terrorists and people like Tommy Robinson have in common, is they both take verses out of context and believe it. It is clear as day, when a verse in properly contextualised, there is no issue with it. I hope Con can understand this.
That is my first argument. The main points which I bring is, Islam is promotes peace as the first option and then violence as the last option. And even when violence is used, it is an act of self defence. There is no verse in the Quran that states innocents should be killed.
Thank you.
Con
#2
Definitions:
Peaceful- Not involving war or violence.
I find the first argument in favor of Islam interesting. Hopefully, Pro can elaborate the context of these verses.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.
Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers
Quran 9.5: When sacred months have passed, kill polytheists wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is forgiving and merciful.
Sounds like a very peaceful religion. It's truly a mystery how so many lunatics could have possibly taken these quotes out of context.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Peaceful- Not involving war or violence.
Islam does not state that is is a pacifistic religion. Peace is always the first option, this is what I mean by peaceful religion. Violence is always the last resort.
Lets go through these quotes.
24:2
This is a punishment. I don't understand Con's need to include this quote in because if a person commits a crime, a punishment is there for him. This is a system in every section of the world. It is a form of deterrent to stop others doing the crime and to stop others getting hurt. So it reinforces peace by reducing the number of crimes and distress.
4:34
Another interesting quote, don't know why Con has included this either. If wives commit ill conduct to their husbands, the husband must consult and speak with her first. Is this not peace? If the wife persists then he has to leave the bedroom and sleep somewhere else. Is this not peace? And finally, if the wife carries on and takes it further, the man must tap the wife gently as stated in 4:34. 'then discipline them ˹gently˺'
The reason why it says gently is because there are rules that a husband must follow to protect their wife.
He must not hit/slap the face
He must not cause her any harm
He must not leave a bruise or any type of mark on her
So taking notice of these rules and what is forbidden, how could a husband possibly damage his wife due to Islam?
Next.
5:38
Very intrigued to why Con has given this verse as well. It seems all have been questionable to be picked because none enforce violence without peace first or without reason.
So 5:38 states that a thieves hands to be cut off when they steal something. First of all, 4 witnesses must testify in court to make this a fair trial and if the criminal has committed the crime, it is a punishment. As the other one, this is also a deterrent. It minimises pain and suffering to the victims side and the witnesses need good reason to confess he is guilty. If a person steals an apple from a market stall to feed himself or his family, the court will take this into consideration if it ends up reaching court, and he won't be persecuted. Just another quote that Con has given which I can't understand why.
2:191
I mean this one is so out of context it is unbelievable. Con has purposely not included bits of the verse to make his argument seem right, however not so fast.
2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.
2:191- and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out.
And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there
2:192- But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2:193- Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution
If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.
I mean come on, the proof is in the pudding. It is a war verse. This is a classic example of self defence. Peace was the first option, however remember the Holy War criteria? That a Muslim cannot go to war with the enemy unless they attack first. Clearly the Muslims are not the aggressors, they are not told to cause terror, they are not told to kill or fight first. Only attack if the enemy attacks, that is the rule.
9:5
Another out of context, war verse.
9:1- you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with- It is a peace treaty that the believers are commanded to offer to the enemy.
9:2- 'You ˹polytheists˺ may travel freely through the land for four months'- The 4 months are referred to as the sacred months later on. The enemy have 4 months to agree to a peace treaty.
9:4- As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term- This is talking about the enemy who have not broken the peace treaty. The Quran tells the Muslims to honour the treaty until it's end term, and then the enemy will have 4 months to agree to a new one.
9:5- But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺
But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free
That should be self explanatory also. It is another war verse. It is talking about those who break the peace treaty. Islam commands Muslims to offer a peace treaty before going to war and again reinforces the idea that peace is always the first option and violence is the last.
Con's first argument has been pretty weak, not much to it except some cherry picking of quotes which I have answered in detail.
Look forward to Con's second argument.
Con
#4
Pro’s interpretations to quite a few of these verses is very charitable. Not the least of which are convincing.
Rebuttals:
“This is a punishment. I don't understand Con's need to include this quote in because if a person commits a crime, a punishment is there for him. This is a system in every section of the world. It is a form of deterrent to stop others doing the crime and to stop others getting hurt. So it reinforces peace by reducing the number of crimes and distress.”
Because this precisely illustrates the point I’m making. Believing that this is justifiable only encourages the assumption people have about this cult. The punishment for adultery is to be subject to 100 strikes from a whip, a consequence known as Flogging- A punishment in which the victim is hit repeatedly with a whip or stick.
Now the injuries sustained from flogging are very serious. There runs the risk of inflammation, blood loss, inflammation, and life-long psychological trauma. All of this occurred at a time when physicians didn’t have access to medications or antibiotics.
Pro is inadvertently defending a system of retribution that seeks to punish unmarried men and women for sleeping around. Draw your own conclusions about whether or not this system is acceptable.
“4:34Another interesting quote, don't know why Con has included this either. If wives commit ill conduct to their husbands, the husband must consult and speak with her first. Is this not peace? If the wife persists then he has to leave the bedroom and sleep somewhere else. Is this not peace? And finally, if the wife carries on and takes it further, the man must tap the wife gently as stated in 4:34. 'then discipline them ˹gently˺'”
There are many different translations of this verse, this one saying.:
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.
But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
It should therefore come as no surprise then that there would be a lot of domestic abuse under the religion of Islam.
“Very intrigued to why Con has given this verse as well. It seems all have been questionable to be picked because none enforce violence without peace first or without reason.So 5:38 states that a thieves hands to be cut off when they steal something. First of all, 4 witnesses must testify in court to make this a fair trial and if the criminal has committed the crime, it is a punishment. As the other one, this is also a deterrent. It minimises pain and suffering to the victims side and the witnesses need good reason to confess he is guilty. If a person steals an apple from a market stall to feed himself or his family, the court will take this into consideration if it ends up reaching court, and he won't be persecuted. Just another quote that Con has given which I can't understand why.”
I’m going to respond with this.:
"‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: ''The hand of a thief is to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar or more."
“2:191I mean this one is so out of context it is unbelievable. Con has purposely not included bits of the verse to make his argument seem right, however not so fast.2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.2:191- and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out.And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there2:192- But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.2:193- Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecutionIf they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.I mean come on, the proof is in the pudding. It is a war verse. This is a classic example of self defence. Peace was the first option, however remember the Holy War criteria? That a Muslim cannot go to war with the enemy unless they attack first. Clearly the Muslims are not the aggressors, they are not told to cause terror, they are not told to kill or fight first. Only attack if the enemy attacks, that is the rule. “
Like Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan Caravans and genocide of its people?
Or is this the exception to the self-defense rule?
I mean come on; the proof is in the pudding, RIGHT!?!?!?!
Conclusion:
Pro attempts to explain away the violence and brutality committed by Islam through claiming these verses are “cherry-picked." Not that extra detail nullifies the significance of these crimes.
Sources: https://www.islamhadith.com
Round 3
Pro
#5
Ok, quite a bit to unpack and unload.
Pro is inadvertently defending a system of retribution that seeks to punish unmarried men and women for sleeping around. Draw your own conclusions about whether or not this system is acceptable.
It is a crime. You have to understand that the perpetrator has committed a crime and a crime must be dealt with by justice. If there was no justice, then there would be chaos and therefore this punishment is acceptable. And only in rare cases does this punishment actually happen. As I said, 4 witnesses, a fair trial and something of value and something kept in a place that is stolen is seen as a crime that would give this type of punishment.
There are many different translations of this verse, this one saying.:"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
No that is not right. What you are insinuating in that a man has a right to STRIKE a woman. The strike that me and you know very well, means to forcefully hit. Now in the actual translation it says strike gently. Why the use of this oxymoron? The answer is very obvious. In Arabic, the word 'strike' in this context does not mean to forcefully hit and therefore strike is translated to as 'tap'.
Domestic abuse is not tolerated in Islam actually and is a worldwide crime. Funnily enough, in the western world, domestic abuse is actually very prominent. In fact after the Euros 2020, when England lost on pens, there was a 38% increase on domestic abuse by English white men. Actually, this happened not only due to the fact England lost, but also due to the problem of alcohol, something which Islam prohibits because of the intoxication it leads people to. Therefore, Con has no right to talk about this issue of domestic abuse when it is clear that Islam has nothing to do with it, and is a false claim made by him.
I’m going to respond with this.:"‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: ''The hand of a thief is to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar or more."
I am going to respond with this.
In the same Hadith, the following is what was said.
Allah declared people's properties to be as inviolable as their lives and Honor
a punishment was introduced to repel transgressors
cut off the hand of the thief who steals something that is kept in a safe place
he divine wisdom states that a thief's hand is to be cut for stealing one quarter of a gold dinar or its equivalent so as to protect the wealth of others, enhance security, and promote good gain and investment
The Hadith that Con has provided has no means to escalate to a argument against Islam. It is actually the latter because the cutting off of ones hand is a form of deterrence as demonstrated already. Plus look at the 3rd line, 'who steals something kept in a safe place'. The punishment is not to those who steal an apple or anything, it is for those who want to burgle from someone's house and steal their valuables. The punishment is also aimed to protect the wealth of others and enhance security and doing this, promotes peace.
Like Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan Caravans and genocide of its people?Or is this the exception to the self-defence rule?
I would infer that Con is talking about the raid that led to a peace treaty being made and offered by the Muslims. Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.
Also the second question that Con has given is promoting self defence not as a form of violence. Keep in mind Con has stated this and let's see if he changes in the future rounds.
I mean come on; the proof is in the pudding, RIGHT!?!?!?!
What proof have you given?
Pro attempts to explain away the violence and brutality committed by Islam through claiming these verses are “cherry-picked." Not that extra detail nullifies the significance of these crimes.
Were they not cherry picked or are you denying it? Because clearly they were. All quotes are in act of self defence and as Con mentioned, there is nothing wrong with self defence.
CONCLUSION
Con has not given a reference for the caravan incident. Con has not done himself any justice nor any favours because nothing he has said has changed the outcome that Islam is a beautiful, peaceful religion that commands it's believers and followers to spread justice throughout the land. I conclude that Islam is a peaceful religion and when there is conflict among the Muslims and the enemy, the Muslims can only attack once the enemy has attacked.
References
Con
#6
“It is a crime. You have to understand that the perpetrator has committed a crime and a crime must be dealt with by justice. If there was no justice, then there would be chaos and therefore this punishment is acceptable. And only in rare cases does this punishment actually happen. As I said, 4 witnesses, a fair trial and something of value and something kept in a place that is stolen is seen as a crime that would give this type of punishment.”
Honestly, Pro would have gained more points from this paragraph if he stated it was a mistranslation instead of trying to argue that it is a condonable form of justice. This defense in of itself is a fallacy.
Appeal To The Law Fallacy- When following the law is assumed to be the morally correct thing to do, without justification, or when breaking the law is assumed to be the morally incorrect thing to do, without justification.
Since we are discussing whether Islam is a peaceful religion and Pro acknowledges that this verse is quoted in context, then this only proves my point.
“No that is not right. What you are insinuating in that a man has a right to STRIKE a woman. The strike that me and you know very well, means to forcefully hit. Now in the actual translation it says strike gently. Why the use of this oxymoron? The answer is very obvious. In Arabic, the word 'strike' in this context does not mean to forcefully hit and therefore strike is translated to as 'tap'.Domestic abuse is not tolerated in Islam actually and is a worldwide crime. Funnily enough, in the western world, domestic abuse is actually very prominent. In fact after the Euros 2020, when England lost on pens, there was a 38% increase on domestic abuse by English white men. Actually, this happened not only due to the fact England lost, but also due to the problem of alcohol, something which Islam prohibits because of the intoxication it leads people to. Therefore, Con has no right to talk about this issue of domestic abuse when it is clear that Islam has nothing to do with it, and is a false claim made by him.”
We can discuss the statistics of domestic abuse in England if Pro prefers, but he needs to create a separate thread for it. As his numbers don’t disprove my point about the culture of domestic abuse fostered by Islam.
“Facts and figures about domestic violence in the Muslim community are not as up to date as we would hope.
A study of 22 mosques in New York in 2005 found that
- 96% of the participants perceived the imam as a counselor
- 74% had sought counseling from imams for safety issues. (Abu-Ras and Gheith 2006)”
“I would infer that Con is talking about the raid that led to a peace treaty being made and offered by the Muslims. Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.Also the second question that Con has given is promoting self defence not as a form of violence. Keep in mind Con has stated this and let's see if he changes in the future rounds.”
Nope.
Muhammad might have tried to paint this as self-defense, but the reality couldn’t be any more to the contrary. He instigated them and used violence first.
“At first, the Meccans sought peaceable means in which Muhammad and they could come to terms, trying to avoid any division and hostility between them. Instead of acquiescing, Muhammad tries to bribe the Meccans by promising them rulership over the peoples, both Arabs and non-Arabs alike. Muhammad also threatens them with punishment if they refuse to accept Islam. Note, for instance, the following quotation from al-Tabari:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yazid b. Ziyad- Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Qurazi: They gathered against him, and among them was Abu Jahl b. Hisham, who said, while they were waiting at his door, "Muhammad claims that if you follow him in his religion, you shall be the kings of the Arabs and the non-Arabs, that after your death you shall be brought back to life and your lot shall then be gardens like the gardens of Jordan. He also claims that if you do not do this, you shall meet with slaughter after him, and that after death you shall be brought back to life, and your lot shall then be a fire, in which you shall burn."… (Al-Tabari, pp. 142-143; bold emphasis ours)”
“It was a deliberate maneuver on Muhammad’s part to justify his going to Medina and prepare for war against the Meccans now that he had people who were willing to support his cause. The Meccans, therefore, had a very good reason to be afraid of Muhammad and his companions since it wasn’t for peace that Muhammad fled to Medina, but for war.
It is rather obvious that the reason why Muhammad did not attack the pagans while in Mecca is because he did not have the man-power to fight and prevail. It wasn't until Muhammad knew for certain that Arab tribes from Medina would be willing to help him fight and conquer the Meccans did he then conveniently receive "revelation" that it was okay for him to fight.”
“What proof have you given?”
“Were they not cherry picked or are you denying it? Because clearly they were.”
The statement that the verses were cherry-picked aren’t a shield either way. Despite the claims of self-defense, it is evident that the “prophet” was not as much of a victim as he is the perpetrator.
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Round 4
Pro
#7
Appeal To The Law Fallacy- When following the law is assumed to be the morally correct thing to do, without justification, or when breaking the law is assumed to be the morally incorrect thing to do, without justification.
Follow the law of the land. It is the morally correct thing to do.
“Facts and figures about domestic violence in the Muslim community are not as up to date as we would hope.A study of 22 mosques in New York in 2005 found that
- 96% of the participants perceived the imam as a counselor
- 74% had sought counselling from imams for safety issues. (Abu-Ras and Gheith 2006)”
This is nonsense, I don't get the point here. An Imam being a counsellor has nothing to do with Islam promoting domestic violence. There is a huge issue in domestic violence among countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India etc. But this is to do with culture. Remember, culture and religion are two separate things. Unless Con can find me the statistics about domestic violence because of Islam, his point is void.
Sam Shamoun is a biased source to get from. I understand why you have done that but it is not lawful to do so. Clearly a biased viewpoint satisfies your view on it, so you have found someone who thinks like you as well.
Bare in mind, I stated the following.
Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.
The Meccans wanted to kill the Prophet. They either wanted him dead or to go to war. As the Meccans were preparing for war, What the Muslims did was justified as an act of self defence thus Con has not answered the question. I asked for a reliable reference to where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) raided or killed people for absolutely no reason. Any example, any Hadith. By the way, there is none.
References for this bit
1. Sunan Abī Dāwūd 3004, Grade: Sahih
2. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3734, Grade: Sahih
The statement that the verses were cherry-picked aren’t a shield either way. Despite the claims of self-defence, it is evident that the “prophet” was not as much of a victim as he is the perpetrator.
By cherry picked, I meant out of context, and thank you for admitting that. Despite the claims that the Prophet was a perpetrator, Con has failed to justify why this is the case by giving no reference for it.
Islam is a peaceful religion.
Con has failed to product any evidence of the latter, any evidence of the Prophet attacking people for no reason, any evidence of the Quran telling people to attack others for no reason, any evidence of Islam advocating violence without reason and I can go on.
This round for me has been rushed.
Con
#8
Overview:
- My point of flogging as a punishment for adultery as being a cruel and unusual punishment remains uncontested by Pro.
- I argue that the verses in Islam endorse domestic abuse and show statistics. (Slightly refuted.) Pro mentions that correlation is not causation, but my argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives being misinterpreted has yet to be disproven.
- I argue that Muhammad has acted in offense before and cite a source. Pro’s response is an apparent ad hominem attack.
I believe the verses and example of Muhammad’s actions are sufficient enough on its own to demonstrate that Islam is in-fact, not a peaceful religion but I’m going to explore it a little deeper.
“Sam Shamoun is a biased source to get from. I understand why you have done that but it is not lawful to do so. Clearly a biased viewpoint satisfies your view on it, so you have found someone who thinks like you as well.”
This ad hominem attack from Pro is laced with passive aggression. And keep in mind, this “rebuttal” doesn’t mean my sources are false just because of the claim of ‘bias.’
“The Meccans wanted to kill the Prophet. They either wanted him dead or to go to war. As the Meccans were preparing for war, What the Muslims did was justified as an act of self defence thus Con has not answered the question. I asked for a reliable reference to where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) raided or killed people for absolutely no reason. Any example, any Hadith. By the way, there is none.”
The Quran justifies this as an act of self-defense. And there is proof and documentation which establishes first-hand that Muhammad was the instigator who used bullying, threats of intimidation, and force to bend them to his will.
This can be found in The History of al-Tabari, a book written by a Muslim historian. There are also examples in the English translation of Muhammad’s biography, Sirat Rasulullah, which became known as “The Life of Muhammad.”
“By cherry picked, I meant out of context, and thank you for admitting that. Despite the claims that the Prophet was a perpetrator, Con has failed to justify why this is the case by giving no reference for it.Islam is a peaceful religion.Con has failed to product any evidence of the latter, any evidence of the Prophet attacking people for no reason, any evidence of the Quran telling people to attack others for no reason, any evidence of Islam advocating violence without reason and I can go on.”
There was no admission of cherry-picking if you read back to my response from the previous round and I did prove that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense. Extend.
Real Life Accounts:
You can make the argument that these people were taken the Quran "out of context," but this doesn't deny the very sociopathic and tyrannical influence Islam holds over its members.
l. Indonesia
On January 10, 2000, a Christian village was raided by Muslim extremists who sought to convert their new recruits by means of intimidation and force. They set fire to the houses, forcing the villagers on the retreat and to flee into the jungle in order to escape.
"Instead, Adel froze, paralyzed by the crackling sounds of fire now drifting up the hillside as smoke ascended into the darkening sky. They have set the entire village ablaze. Every house would be consumed, she knew, including her own."
ll. Afghanistan
On March 19, 2015, a Muslim religious teacher by the name of Farkhunda Malikzada was reportedly accused of burning the Quran one day when a tragic argument took a turn for the worse.
She was attacked and brutalized by a mob that struggled against the police in their fight. The mob then burned her body, and evidence was released proving that the allegation made against her was in-fact, false.
The Concept of Eternal Punishment:
Each punishment varies judging by the actions of one previous to death. But of all the consequences seem to be very brutal. The technical term for hell in Islam being “Jahannam,”
- Eternity in blazing fire[11]
- Hung by the breasts[12]
- Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
- Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
- Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
- Beat with maces of iron[15]
- Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
- Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
- Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
- Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
- Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
- Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
- Intestines will come out[27]
- Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
Conclusion:
I have successfully maintained my position that Islam is not in-fact a peaceful religion, by illustrating the barbarism of its people and the inhumane methods of punishment. The only rebuttal I have seen from Pro would be about the issue of domestic violence, but he concedes on my point about flogging and the method of cutting off a person's arm as punishment. His only remedy to these two points is the difficulties in a trial.
He claims that Muslims can only act in self-defense but fails to disprove my point about Muhammad being a murderer who used violence first. His response is a blatant ad hominem attack.
Vote CON.
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Round 5
Pro
#9
Ok, so this will be my final argument,
I think I have successfully made the case already.
War is justifiable by self defence, Con has not refuted this therefore in every instance of self defence, going to war is fine. I am making the claim right now that you won't find a single verse in the Quran that allows Muslims to go to war without reason. I will back it up and double down and also make the claim that you won't find a single piece of evidence that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attacked an innocent person for no reason. There is always a reason, always. Even if you go to the WikiIslam website, you will find a reason for every single one of those attacks. And on the very rare scenario that you don't, the Hadith is fabricated. The Prophet endured pain through his life and still never fought back until necessary.
Even if you talk about the caravans and the poetry and all the other attacks that the Muslims did, you won't find a single piece of evidence that suggests they were not attacked first.
- My point of flogging as a punishment for adultery as being a cruel and unusual punishment remains uncontested by Pro.
The point of flogging is it is a deterrence. God doesn't want people to get hurt therefore he set this punishment, so people do not commit the crime and stay away from this. It is not an unusual punishment, it has a purpose.
- I argue that the verses in Islam endorse domestic abuse and show statistics. (Slightly refuted.) Pro mentions that correlation is not causation, but my argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives being misinterpreted has yet to be disproven.
You have not showed how Islam endorses domestic abuse, only state why Muslims abuse their wife. Is it really to do with Islam or is it to do with cultural reasons in society? There has not been a single verse that Con has given except for Surah Nisa: 4:3 which has already been refuted. Your argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives has been misinterpreted. I will repeat again, Men are not allowed to hurt their wives, not allowed to touch their wives face in an act of violence and not allowed to leave a mark or bruise and you still say that Islam endorses hitting women? This is not right and is a lie.
- I argue that Muhammad has acted in offense before and cite a source. Pro’s response is an apparent ad hominem attack.
Let's talk about this properly.
This is the Wikipedia page for the conflict with the Muslims and the Meccans. Sam Shamoun does not know what he is talking about. Tell me where Muhammed (PBUH) acted violent first.
This was a conflict. People were going to attack people. Who started this conflict, because it was not the Muslims. In fact the Muslims gave a peace treaty and the pagan Meccans did not adhere to it. Therefore, it was an act of self defence whatever the Muslims did. This further raises the point to find me a verse in the Quran which advocates violence without reason. And voters, if Con gives a verse, look at it yourselves, go 5 ayahs up and 5 ayahs down. Read the full context.
And there is proof and documentation which establishes first-hand that Muhammad was the instigator who used bullying, threats of intimidation, and force to bend them to his will.
Give me the proof. As you clearly said, within that book there is proof, so give the proof. Page number and reference.
By the way, side note,
Bullying is haram in Islam.
Threats of intimidation is also haram without reason
Forcing something is also haram, it actually states '2:256- There is no compulsion in religion'. Muslims are not allowed to force people to join the religion and this makes Con's claim about this earlier on untrue. Forcing someone to join Islam is haram.
There was no admission of cherry-picking if you read back to my response from the previous round and I did prove that Muhammad was not acting in self-defence. Extend.
No you haven't. Unless you give me the part where Muhammed (PBUH) attacked the Meccans first without reason or provocation, your point is still void. The Sam Shamoun scandalous piece you have given, is not accurate. I have given the Wikipedia page, even that is more accurate. And we all know about Wikipedia.
On January 10, 2000, a Christian village was raided by Muslim extremists who sought to convert their new recruits by means of intimidation and force. They set fire to the houses, forcing the villagers on the retreat and to flee into the jungle in order to escape.
2:256- There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.
Therefore, they were not following the religion of Islam.
On March 19, 2015, a Muslim religious teacher by the name of Farkhunda Malikzada was reportedly accused of burning the Quran one day when a tragic argument took a turn for the worse.She was attacked and brutalized by a mob that struggled against the police in their fight. The mob then burned her body, and evidence was released proving that the allegation made against her was in-fact, false.
If the allegation was false, what is your point? Where does Islam teach that you should kill an innocent person? Again, Muslims only are allowed to act in self defence and even if they thought that they were, they were wrong. So if what you are saying is true, I condemn those Muslims as well as the Christian village ones and I am sure the rest of the Ummah does too. Therefore your point is void, Islam does not teach this once again.
The Concept of Eternal Punishment:Each punishment varies judging by the actions of one previous to death. But of all the consequences seem to be very brutal. The technical term for hell in Islam being “Jahannam,”
Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist. This is a Muslim's belief. The concept of hell eternally, is only for those who are disbelievers. If you are Muslim, you will not go to hell for eternity. At some point, even the worst of Muslims will go to hell for a long time and then maybe once their punishment is done, they can go to heaven. This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person.
but he concedes on my point about flogging and the method of cutting off a person's arm as punishment. His only remedy to these two points is the difficulties in a trial.
These two things are punishment for deterrence.
And even if you commit adultery or stealing, shall I tell you the criteria again?
Adultery
-Punishment is only applied if you are caught having sex outside of marriage in the Public with 4 male witnesses testifying that you are guilty. This is near enough impossible. Only an ignorant person would have sex in public where there are witnesses. Even the UK has public indecency laws, the punishment is only a form of deterrence. Con has not debunked this at all, but just himself further down a hole.
Stealing
-Punishment only applies if one steals from a place that there are lots of valuables and from a place which keeps things safe such as a house. And what is the punishment for burglary in the UK? Up to 6 years in prison. This is a form of punishment. Sharia Law also has a form of punishment known as deterrence.
He claims that Muslims can only act in self-defence but fails to disprove my point about Muhammad being a murderer who used violence first. His response is a blatant ad hominem attack.
First of all, even if Muhammad (PBUH) did act first and never used self defence- which he didn't- but lets say he did. How does that disprove the original question that Islam is peaceful religion. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the religion advocating what individuals do, know the difference please. And even so, Muhammad never so stop lying. You haven't even given an accurate source.
Conclusion
I have a few simple, easy points.
-Islam teaches that Muslims can only act in self defence to go to war or to attack someone else. To disprove this, you need to refer to the scripture and add context as well. If Con fails to do so, he concedes this point.
-Islam teaches to not hurt women, not touch them with a violent intent nor leave a mark or bruise. If Con fails to disprove this, he concedes this point.
-The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) has never attacked someone first without a reason. With the Meccan conflict, the Meccans attacked first and started the conflict and never stuck to the peace treaty so this example is void. If Con fails to prove the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) failed to keep his head and attacked first using a reliable source, he concedes the point.
- Eternal punishment is something that only Muslims believe to non believers. If Con doesn't believe in the Muslim reality of hell, then he concedes this point.
-I never stated that Islam is a pacifist religion, only a peaceful one where Muslims can only act in self defence if the enemy attacks you. If Con disagrees with this point, he must explain why and if he can't, he concedes the point.
Vote Pro
Con
#10
Conclusion:
- Established that flogging is a brutal punishment which has not been properly refuted by Pro, so he tries to double down.
- Proven that domestic abuse occurs in Islam with statistics and that the Quran verse permits men to put their hands on their wives.
- Demonstrated that Muhammad instigated war against the Meccans so he could force his religion on them, and he lied about having acted in self-defense to justify his cruelty.
- Showed real life accounts about how Muslims harassed Christian villagers by burning their houses down to get them to convert and how they brutalized a woman and set her body on fire.
- Made the point that their version of Hell is just blatant fear-mongering.
So I have demonstrated with Quran verses, statistical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and even historical evidence that Islam was not founded in peace or the love for another man, and when you look further, it is a cult of genocide and barbarism.
Pro accuses me of cherry-picking several times and labels me as biased when confronted with overwhelming sources to back up my points.
Vote CON.
Rebuttals:
The point of flogging is it is a deterrence. God doesn't want people to get hurt therefore he set this punishment, so people do not commit the crime and stay away from this. It is not an unusual punishment, it has a purpose.-Punishment is only applied if you are caught having sex outside of marriage in the Public with 4 male witnesses testifying that you are guilty. This is near enough impossible. Only an ignorant person would have sex in public where there are witnesses. Even the UK has public indecency laws, the punishment is only a form of deterrence. Con has not debunked this at all, but just himself further down a hole.
Public indecency exists in its own category. Pro is trying to double down on his defense of this point because he failed to address it the first time.
Appeal To Extremes- Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.
Two people do not have to be sleeping together in public to be caught. They could be in their own or someone else's house at a party but in one of the bedrooms and it is entirely possible for one of the neighbors to walk in, accompanied by three other people.
Stop acting like this punishment can only be invoked under only specific circumstances. A husband can even falsely accuse his own wife.
"If a complete sentence was administered at once, the accused could potentially die."
You have not showed how Islam endorses domestic abuse, only state why Muslims abuse their wife. Is it really to do with Islam or is it to do with cultural reasons in society? There has not been a single verse that Con has given except for Surah Nisa: 4:3 which has already been refuted. Your argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives has been misinterpreted. I will repeat again, Men are not allowed to hurt their wives, not allowed to touch their wives face in an act of violence and not allowed to leave a mark or bruise and you still say that Islam endorses hitting women? This is not right and is a lie.
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.
But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
The fact that many men would misinterpret this quote to mean violence means that the fault lies with the root. This quote leaves the responsibility of judgment to the husband to decide whether or not his wife is acting irresponsibly, and for a man that gets temperamental, he can invoke this quote to justify his violence.Give me the proof. As you clearly said, within that book there is proof, so give the proof. Page number and reference.By the way, side note,Bullying is haram in Islam.Threats of intimidation is also haram without reasonForcing something is also haram, it actually states '2:256- There is no compulsion in religion'. Muslims are not allowed to force people to join the religion and this makes Con's claim about this earlier on untrue. Forcing someone to join Islam is haram.
"In regard to Muhammad’s early preaching in Mecca, Al-Tabari notes:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq: The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway, as far as I had heard, UNTIL he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. The latter were few in number and practiced their faith in secret. His uncle Abu Talib was friendly to him, however, and protected him and shielded him from them. The Messenger of God continued to do God’s work and to proclaim his message, undeterred by anything. When Quraysh saw that he would not give them any satisfaction, they objected to his departing from their ways and denouncing their gods, and seeing that Abu Talib protected him, shielded him from harm, and would not hand him over to them, a number of the nobles of Quraysh, consisting of such men as ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Shaybah b. Rabi‘ah, Abu al-Bakhtari b. Hisham, al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-‘As b. Wa’il and Nubayh and Munabbih, the sons of al-Hajjaj, went to Abu Talib and said, "Abu Talib, your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are just as opposed to him as we are, and we will deal with him for you." Abu Talib gave them a mild answer and declined courteously, and they left him. The Messenger of God continued as before, proclaiming the faith of God and summoning people to it."
Sam Shamoun is a credible source. He uses historical quotes and documentation to supplement his evidence.
If the allegation was false, what is your point? Where does Islam teach that you should kill an innocent person? Again, Muslims only are allowed to act in self defence and even if they thought that they were, they were wrong. So if what you are saying is true, I condemn those Muslims as well as the Christian village ones and I am sure the rest of the Ummah does too. Therefore your point is void, Islam does not teach this once again.
That once again, Islam has led to a cult-like mentality for which the influence convinces people to commit genocide in an act of preserving their religion.
“But those who are faithless and deny Our signs, they shall be the inmates of the Fire and they shall remain in it forever” (Q 2:39)."
"[2:161] Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all."
"[3:12] Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-place."
Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist. This is a Muslim's belief. The concept of hell eternally, is only for those who are disbelievers. If you are Muslim, you will not go to hell for eternity. At some point, even the worst of Muslims will go to hell for a long time and then maybe once their punishment is done, they can go to heaven. This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person.
What kind of counter-argument is this?
I have no right to talk about Hell because I am not Muslim? Hopefully, you can see my other reasons for bringing this up. That the concept of Hell is a fear-mongering tactic to keep its cult members submissive by reinforcing the fear of cruel punishments.
- Eternity in blazing fire[11]
- Hung by the breasts[12]
- Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
- Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
- Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
- Beat with maces of iron[15]
- Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
- Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
- Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
- Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
- Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
- Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
- Intestines will come out[27]
- Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
First of all, even if Muhammad (PBUH) did act first and never used self defence- which he didn't- but lets say he did. How does that disprove the original question that Islam is peaceful religion. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the religion advocating what individuals do, know the difference please. And even so, Muhammad never so stop lying. You haven't even given an accurate source.
If the Founder of a religion you are arguing is peaceful, has engaged in violence and brutality then it recontextualizes everything about the belief system and invalidates 100% of what you are saying. It is clearly evident that Islam does not promote peace whatsoever and I have proven it.
I will extend my quote from earlier where the evidence of Muhammad's crimes can be carefully laid out.
"This can be found in The History of al-Tabari, a book written by a Muslim historian. There are also examples in the English translation of Muhammad’s biography, Sirat Rasulullah, which became known as “The Life of Muhammad.”
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's arguments regarding Muslim law and scripture are very compelling, advocating against war when possible and only punishing what are viewed as the most grievous crimes such as adultery and murder is very peaceful as far as civilizations go. Con's criticisms on the punishments regarding adultery are not particularly strong, as they only point to a single case that is applied as a retroactive punishment and is subject to some degree to adjudication.
However, the argument isn't about the society, it is about the underlying religion. Con has a knockdown argument in the form of eternal punishment for sinful and nonbelievers. Pro tries to dismiss this on the grounds that Con does not believe in the religion of Islam. This is an obviously nonsensical argument, as the people supporting this form of eternal punishment are the ones that DO believe in it.
(Shrug)
'Still the God of Abraham, (I think)
Still, the blind men, all feel the elephant,
Though different parts,
And by their senses, experiences, actions,
Have different conceptions.
@rayhan16
To experience pain,
Implies to me change,
A person can change from not being in a type of pain,
To being in a type of pain,
Assuming people in the Islamic Hell are not constantly tortured by everything without a millisecond of not being tortured by everything at once.
If change is possible,
Then arguably the mind can change,
New memory experiences can be had,
Assuming everyone doesn't have Dementia or Alzheimer's in Hell.
Thus I'd argue that it'd be feasible for 'everyone to exit Hell,
By becoming Muslims while in Hell,
(Though I don't much like or agree with Hell as torture, myself)
Unfortunately I don't know much of the Christian Bible,
But even less of Islamic texts,
Still,
Christian Bible talks about "refining" a lot,
Which one could argue has to do with refining out impurities,
https://www.openbible.info/topics/refiners_fire
But, (shrug)
Books say a lot of things.
And I'm not a believer myself.
@Thinking to Self
One might argue that,
If an individual orders a dog to attack me, that individual is responsible, for my being bitten.
If I commit some crime or danger to another person, then I hold a measure of responsibility for a policeman ordering a dog to attack me.
If I enter private property, and a dog attacks me, that I hold a measure of responsibility.
If I enter private property unknowingly, Eh, why can't ignorance be an excuse.
I would not say it is one God. But that could be saved for a debate.
"Muslims are much more likely to dox the anti-Muslim and threaten via YT.
YT is heavily poi Islam with their comments sections able to censor anything against the faith as islamophobic.
The main part of Islam YT bans is the LGBTphobia"
Yeah I agree, but it's their choice.
Well, in Christianity (and traditional judaism) the trinity is one essence but three persons. So it is One God and three Distinct Persons.
Islam directly opposes this idea in the portions of the Quran I cited.
Yes I agree. Trinity and Tawhid are two different words.
The Quran is the first thing to look at. Study it, look at the rules and regulations within it and see for yourself what kind of book it is, in it's entirety. Go to a mosque, ask the imam or other Muslims who know about Islam. Watch YouTube videos about the key beliefs etc. I am definitely not a scholar but I want to learn more and these things I would recommend. Also Hadith's are good to read as well.
Right. So then by definition we do not worship the same God.
What’s the quickest way for a beginner to learn about Islam?
Is it as simple as reading the Quran or are there other study sources?
To answer your questions, from my understanding,
Islam promises heaven for the believers but for the disbelievers it's hell. Hell does the torturing, it's not a little chamber, it's a beast. God created hell as a punishment for the disbelievers
Oh yes, by that I totally agree. There is no trinity in Islam.
Yes but Allah is not the same as the Judeo-Christian God. Your Quran says so in 17:111, 5:48, and 5:72.
It blatantly states Jesus is not God and there is no Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Christian Scriptures completely, in John 1:1, John 15:26-27, and Genesis 1:26.
So your god is not our God.
Not everyone believes Hell is eternal.
From my glancing at the debate,
Sounds that Islam can be war or peace.
As for the Hell argument,
Eh, Con wouldn't need to believe in it themself, to use it in their argument.
Though I'm not sure even if Hell existed, whether it'd make Islam peaceful or not,
Reason being, my mind drifts a bit,
There's the Islamic Deity, The Followers, The World. . .
If there was a religion that was 'super nice on Earth, but claimed a bad afterlife, would the religion be peaceful or not?
Not saying Islam is the nicest religion on Earth, just meant as an example.
Who is doing the torturing?
Does one 'assume the Deity can or ought stop Hell?
That 'sounds a bit weak, to people who say Deities can do and know anything I suppose,
But it's not as though 'we know all the details.
Well. . .
If they existed, myself I'm an Atheist,
But I don't mind people having different views, generally speaking.
Allah is God in Islam, the superior being, the highest being, the most merciful, the most forgiving, the supreme being
if you'd like, I'll debate you on whether God and Allah are the same person. I don't believe they are the same by any means at all.
The concept of eternal punishment for non-believers is not unique to Islam, it is an idea presented by many religions, and like Islam, some say that rejecting their religion is automatically eternal damnation. Even modern concepts such as Roko's basilisk leverage this strategy, which is very simply a THREAT OF INFINITE VIOLENCE. The fact that multiple religions employ this tactic makes it suddenly an incredibly difficult decision, where you must gamble with the possibility of your immortal soul.
https://giphy.com/gifs/sf9usCEvitius
Same character. But a very different version.
Allah is the same god
Christianity threatens the same thing. If you don't accept Jesus as the savior, you can't go to Heaven. If you don't accept Allah as God, you can't go to Heaven.
The idea that one would willfully choose Hell as a choice if they knew it exists is completely absurd. People will be punished for eternity for believing in the wrong doctrine, do you now see why other people might take issue with that?
Yes, that is the point. Obviously forcing someone to become Muslim is forbidden, but the clear guidance via the Quran is there plus the clear proof that we exist therefore God exists is also there. So it isn't God's fault that one ends up in hell, it is that individual who rejects the signs. If I keep on breaking the law, I will get a few warnings. Once those warnings are done and I keep on breaking the law after that, I get put in prison. If I keep on breaking the law after that, it would be a life sentence and I will most likely die in prison. It is the same principle you apply to hell.
You are trying to help them avoid hell. You can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink it.
Is it? Even if you know that the outcome will be eternal hell if you continue to disbelieve and be arrogant, then why would one be surprised that they are getting what they wanted?
"Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist."-You
" If Con doesn't believe in the Muslim reality of hell, then he concedes this point. " -Also you
The idea that any finite action on Earth can result in literally INFINITE punishment is an untenable position.
I don't get your vote. I never only spoke about non Muslims not believing in hell. I said this 'This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person. '.
That was my reasoning. 70, 80, 90 years on this earth to figure it out and if you reject it, the belief if you die as a disbeliever and go to hell. However if you accept it, or if you don't know too much about it, then you will be judged by God. This is the common Muslim belief, I don't understand where the 'knockdown' argument is.
Muslims are much more likely to dox the anti-Muslim and threaten via YT.
YT is heavily poi Islam with their comments sections able to censor anything against the faith as islamophobic.
The main part of Islam YT bans is the LGBTphobia
Let's say you are right Lancelot. Is it really a good ideal to convince a Muslim he is supposed to behave violently?
Thank you, I may give that a look
Well, I find your votes pretty insightful. I’d still like a vote from you on the Free Market vs Regulation debate if you’re cool with it.
If you do make a video, don’t even worry if you happen to show the names.
Yeah but that would require me to put the video through my Sony Vegas and go frame by frame wherever I find their name, essentially needing to rewatch the video which could be an hour long. At that point, I'd rather not.
You can edit certain parts of the video to blur out names.
But I don’t really care if my username is broadcast in a YouTube video.
Gotcha. If that's the case, my OBS recordings would probably reveal usernames so it would be better if I abstained from voting then.
Yes, what Lancelot said.
And YouTube has a strong anti-Muslim community, so it might encourage trolls to make sock puppet accounts to harass rayhan16.
If too much private info is made public to platforms like YouTube, doxxing becomes more likely.
How come?
Be sure to not include my username if possible
That...could work.
I'll probably just make a YouTube video of it
I swear these aren’t my own expectations, the website is just very weird about vote restrictions.
They prefer it a certain way and are quick to enforce these standards
Lol, I'm only joking
The tension between you two can be cut with a knife XD
Consult me if you feel intimidated by my opponent.
If you do vote, you’ll need a paragraph summarizing the position of both sides. Any shorter than that and the mods will delete it.
DM me if you would like me to provide more details about our arguments or you need me to review it.
Also, I suggest writing it in a google doc first and then pasting it because you can always rewrite it if the vote gets deleted.
I will probably vote on this today or tomorrow.
.
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE OF EDITING CONSERVALLECTUAL'S VOTE TO YOU? LOL! "If you want to revote, you can always write a rough draft and run it by me before submitting it."
Seemingly, not only are you wanting the Bible inept pseudo-christian Conservallectual's vote, but you want to edit it in what YOU want him to say! How laughable it that?! Then you wonder why we laugh at your long-winded dissertations in YOU not getting to the point of the topic forthwith because of your non-debating skills. LOL!
.
If you want to revote, you can always write a rough draft and run it by me before submitting it.
Ik reported votes can get annoying.
.
RAYHAN16 IS A NO VOTE SAYS ALLAH BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR!
The dumbfounded of the Qur’an RAYHAN16 deserves NO VOTES because of his blatant LYING about his faith, notwithstanding, that said faith was inspired by a PEDOPHILE named Muhammed in "toying around" with a 6 year old girl named Aisha! (Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha)
.
RAYHAN16, YOUR BLATANT MUSLIM LYING QUOTE!: “I have stated that whenever Muslims are commanded to go to war, there is always a case of self defense. A Muslim is only allowed to go to war if the enemy attacks first. In fact, you won't find a single war verse in the Quran that states to go to war and kill innocent people” https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48964
Rayhan16, you have been RUNNING AWAY from the following 4 passages in the comment section since their inception, that explicitly show you to be the continued LIAR towards your pathetic faith of Islam relating to Muslims only go to war in self-defense, NOT!
In the following links, there was absolutely NO self-defense situations relating to Hell bound Muslims, whereas instead, without being provoked, and in chronological order, Muslims are told to attack others!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48899 (Post #32)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48900 (Post #33)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48901 (Post #34)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48902 (Post #35)
.
Your initial problem is that you actually think the membership is as dumbfounded as you are regarding your Satanic Qur’an, where you being a LIAR as shown in this post, you are HELL BOUND!
"If they had been true to Allaah, it would have been better for them." [Muhammad 47:21]
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: You must be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will keep speaking the truth and striving to speak the truth until he will be recorded with Allaah as a siddeeq (speaker of the truth). BEWARE OF TELLING LIES, for lying leads to immorality AND IMMORALITY LEADS TO HELLFIRE. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.
.
NEXT LYING PSEUDO-MUSLIM LIKE “RAYHAN16” THAT EXPECTS VOTES FOR HIM SUBSEQUENT TO BLATANTLY LYING ABOUT HIS FAITH AS SHOWN IN THIS POST, WILL BE … ?
.
Let's have a debate
Islam vs Christianity
You down?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con (arguments and sources)
>Reason for Decision: I believe that con had better arguments. He used verses from the quran, better sources, etc.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Ah yes, 9/11 was for self defense.
The talaban firing on people - just for self defense
The beirut bombings were clearly just self defense
Salman Taseer was murdered in self defense - quite clearly
The 1993 World trade center bombing was done in self defense
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:30
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:36
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:39
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:14
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:73
BTW, I do not hate you nor your religion nor your people, I have muslim friends, I just believe your religion is false.