Instigator / Con
1
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3522
Islam is a religion that supports terrorism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
rayhan16
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1706
rating
563
debates
68.12%
won
Description
Islam is a terrorist supporting religion
I am against this statement
Round 1
Con
#1
Definition of Terrorism
I will quote directly from dictionary.com. 'the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.'. This is the meaning of terrorism. Lets break it down. 'Unlawful' violence means against the law, illegal. This can be Sharia and Governmental law. 'Intimidation' is to scare people to follow your ideology, something which Islam prohibits. '"no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256)'. This quote clearly demonstrates that A Muslim is not allowed to force a non-Muslim to become Muslim. I know that Pro will give me some cherry picked quotes that is 'suggesting' to be forceful either from the Hadith or the Quran, and I am ready to answer them, as whatever quotes he brings, will never support terrorism. Some cases, violence is needed but not to innocent people. Innocents mean people who have done nothing wrong and have always followed the law of the land.
Definition of Islam
Islam is a religion in which Muslims must worship the one creator. There are rules in place, however humans can break these rules. I will give the literal meaning of the word Islam as well which is 'submission to the will of God.' Now, these rules that are in place are there to be lawful and righteous. For example, a holy war. The criteria is down below.
-Innocents cannot be killed
-Women and children cannot be killed
-Plants, trees and wildlife cannot be harmed
-A religious leader must start the war
-You must only attack/go to war after the enemy has attacked first (self defence)
These are the strict criterium that a Muslim leader, country or nation must follow. There will 100% be some individuals or groups that Pro will name which have committed terrorist acts. Such as ISIS, such as Osama Bin Laden, such as Taliban etc. I will condemn all these people as they are not following the laws and rules of Islam.
ISIS
Killing innocents
Not self defence, not following the holy war criteria
Therefore, not following Islam
Al Qaeda
Killed innocents
Hijackers of the plane killed themselves, haram
Therefore, not following Islam
The Taliban
Killing innocents
Not self defence, therefore not following Islam
There will be individuals that Pro will also name. Also I would like to make a point between Shia and Sunni Islam. I am a Sunni, therefore I do not believe in many things that Shia's believe. But we both have the same Quran which means the same teachings. If Shia's or Sunni's are not following the teachings of the Quran or the Hadith then they are not following the laws of Islam which is a sin. Grave sin may I add.
Self defence is allowed. Self defence is not terrorism. The reason being is you are not doing an 'unlawful' act, you are simply protecting and defending yourself. Now Prop may also question, what circumstances is self defence tolerable. The answer is when you are in danger, when the enemy has attacked first and killed/hurt innocents, when a peace treaty has been breached/broken etc. Osama Bin Laden may have used self defence in his view, but he also killed innocents, this is not allowed in Islam. But in the event of 9/11, some may say including me that the US had a part in this where no one pays attention to. But still, I condemn all groups and individuals that do not follow the laws of Islam. I cannot wait to answer some of the cherry picked, no context quotes that Pro gives.
This is all for me at the moment as I am short on time,
I am suggesting that Pro is going to give quotes from the Quran and Hadith which are 'allowing' terrorism and I cannot wait to answer all of his misconceptions he has about the beautiful religion of Islam.
Your Move, Pro
References
Pro
#2
I will lay out my points here and save the verses and sourcing for Round 2. I accept if voters dislike this, it does however help the debate evolve rather than be Round-1 centric.
Islam in its authentic meaning means submission to Allah and the arabic equivalent of submission is the very severe end of what in BDSM is known as slavery kink. The bond between the follower of Islam and Allah (and Muhammad PBUH) is like a slave to a master. The idea is consensual slavery in name but when consent is lacking, the religion of Islam and almost all regimes and societies based on the ideology/religion utilise brutal coercion to get their point across.
In discussing what Islam is, a defender of it will play a vicious cyclical game of semantic shifting. If you point out problems with the scripture, they will say that Islam is also interpretation and practise more than written word. In fact, to support this they will correctly point out that the Qur'an is not in its truly holy form in written text but rather in spoke Quranic verses from the lips of an Imam.
Then, if you take that as true and point out what the followers do in the name of Islam, justified by their interpretation of it, the defender will instead sya that is false Islam because Islam is the Qur,an, Hadith and perhaps (in the case of Sunnis) the Sunnah as well.
Inside of the Qur'an, the personality of Allah himself is described as terrifying, almost like a godfather of a mafia more than a typical deity god. He is even described as the greatest deceiver (such that none can deceive him nor outdo his deceit) in a verse celebrating his glory and how to fight lies with Allah by one's side is simply to be loyal to him and let him be the greatest deceived. I will provide all supporting verses in Round 2, allowing my opponent to concede or deny points as they see fit.
Not only is Allah described as a great deceiver, the point is that he is described as terrifying. In fact, the further into the Qur'an one goes, it seems that Allah is a furious, egotistical, megalomaniac mastermind who should be submitted to out of sheer fearful awe.
Allah is essentially deemed to be an abusive persona that we are to submit to or suffer agony in hell, of course.
The problem is that it does not stop there, rather I am describing a personality type that is nit only applicable to Allah but slowly seems to be what all, at least male, supporters of Islam should be ready to be when faced with opposition that they see as getting innthe way of Islam.
By getting in the way of Islam I mean literally that if your people or you, yourself, act or speak in a way that implies you have not submitted entirely to Allah as the follower deems fit, you should be furst lashed and struck, allowed to repent and eventually either stoned to death brutally, hung, beheaded with an Islamic type blade or some such equivalent mortal ending.
Do not be confused, both the Qur'an and the Hadith teachings (the latter focuses on the liftime Muhammad and a psychopathic conqueror known as Khalid ibn al-Whalid) encourage one to instil terror in others but to specifically show mercy and reason only when they are truly scared straight and conform to the submission to Allah.
The idea of mercy in Islam is consistently based on after fear-based respect has been earned. That is why stonings, hangings and beheadings are consistently encouraged to be public and known about, in the Hadiths, because the terror one can instil may help deter others from daring to not submit to the ways if Allah.
Interestingly, it would seem that Muhammad PBUH in particular was a softie behind closed doors and the more public he had to interact with an infidel/sinner/opposer the more ruthless he would be... this implies that grand acts of terror could indeed be seen as genuinely Islamic.
In fact assassinations if the Islamic variety (brotherhood of Hashashin) were specifically structured to be executed in a way that was very much seen, known about, bloody/gory and terror-instilling.
The merciless conqeueror Khalid ibn al-Whalid entered Muhammad's life by slaughtering several hundred men if nit over a thousand that were guarding Muhammad and their wives and children, against Khalid's ruthless invasion. When Khalid eventually meets Muhammad and the weaker or elderly men inside, he realises he can conquer on his behalf, not needing to fight him and is intrigued at how Islam's teachings completely enable that attitude.
Muhammad eventually grants him the honour if 'sword of Allah' after Khalid mercilessly slaughters, pillagez and blackmails the last remnants if Persia to bow before Islam and names the land Iran. That was his greatest and most terrifying colonisation and got him named as almost a saint of Islam.
Round 2
Con
#3
It has been an absolute disgraceful 1st argument from Pro. Not only did he lie and defame the beautiful religion of Islam but he also gave no evidence for his claims. This is a mockery on his behalf. Absolutely unprofessional, his heart got in the way of a civilised debate and has now turned it into a emotional back and forth, instead of an intellectual one. I will address all of his point, but as he gave no quotes nor evidence of his claims, I can rebuke these without evidence of my own. He said he will give evidence in the next round, however this is only part of his tactic to be a time waster, to not let me fully explain all of his misconceptions and the most important one of all, to manipulate the voters decision by elongating the provision of evidence. I will still give my evidence for his biased claims however I don't know what Pro is referring to on most of his claims, so it would be guessing work. Let me begin.
Islam in its authentic meaning means submission to Allah and the Arabic equivalent of submission is the very severe end of what in BDSM is known as slavery kink.
Humans are slaves. We can either be slaves to society, or slaves to the one who created us. All non-Muslims are slaves to society. It decides what to wear, what to do and what to think. If you want to be a slave to society, it has as much influence as a slave to God. However society will not provide anything back in the long term. Allah will, and this is according to my belief. You may not want to accept this claim that you, Pro, are a slave to society, but in the end, it is true.
The bond between the follower of Islam and Allah (and Muhammad PBUH) is like a slave to a master.
Muslims do not worship the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), he was a servant to God as well.
If you point out problems with the scripture, they will say that Islam is also interpretation and practise more than written word
Isn't everything? If you read a book, you have to understand it. Context is heavily linked with understanding, so is interpretation. However, the Book of Allah (Quran) and the Hadith are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity inside them. One may need to read context, know what the Arabic words mean and understand the words written/spoken. The words inside the Quran are a guide to how Muslims should live their life. It is the same with society. There are laws, there are rules and there are guides. People judge you instead of God if you are a non-believer. Slave to society yet no one admits it.
In fact, to support this they will correctly point out that the Qur'an is not in its truly holy form in written text but rather in spoke Quranic verses from the lips of an Imam.
The Quran is in its true holy form when written in the Quran, the linguistics and the way it is written cannot be written by anyone. It cannot be replicated. One word can equate to an entire sentence. The word day in the Quran is written 365 times and the word Month is written 12 times. The linguistics and the wording is amazing. When one speaks the words of the Quran, it is special. Go search up on YouTube, Quran recitations. They are beautiful.
Then, if you take that as true and point out what the followers do in the name of Islam, justified by their interpretation of it
There can only be 1 interpretation. Every scholar, student of knowledge and servant can come to an agreement over 1 interpretation.
Inside of the Qur'an, the personality of Allah himself is described as terrifying, almost like a godfather of a mafia more than a typical deity god
Untrue. Inside the Quran, 113 out of the 114 chapters start by introducing Allah as the most merciful, there cannot be someone more merciful than him. A typical deity God is still God. And to be God, there must be none equal to Him. Allah doesn't want to send people to hell. But will because there are individuals, groups, swarms and disbelievers out there that do not want to follow the laws of Islam. Everything that the Quran tells you to do, is good for you. There is no mention of starting a war, there is no mention of killing innocents, there is no mention of oppressing innocents etc. Allah is the most merciful and holds the most power.
Not only is Allah described as a great deceiver
There is no mention of this. I presume Pro is talking about 3:54. I will send the verse here. 'And they [i.e., the disbelievers] planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners'. The word 'Makara' means to plan or to deceive, We take the positive meaning. Not cherry picking. Let me give you another example. When Muslims say 'Jazakallah' the word 'jazaa' means return of a deed. So when Muslims say Jazakallah, it either means 'may Allah punish you' or 'may Allah reward you. Of course we take the 'May Allah reward you' because the word 'Khairun' is also said. This word eliminates the bad meaning and leaves you with the good one. ' Khayru Al-Mākirīna' means planner. Not deceiver. This is why it means planned. Nice try though, I love your admiration.
I will provide all supporting verses in Round 2, allowing my opponent to concede or deny points as they see fit.
There is absolutely no need for this, as all your point are wrong. Evidence must be given as soon as you made the point, or that eliminates the point. It also makes you look like you want to buy some time.
Allah is essentially deemed to be an abusive persona that we are to submit to or suffer agony in hell, of course.
There is nothing abusive about Him. Everything that He says we must and must not do, is of course justified. Do not drink alcohol, its bad for you, do not eat pork, it is bad for you, do not commit adultery, it is bad for you, do not murder, it is bad for everyone etc. Every rule is just, fair and not cruel in any manner. We must submit to the one who created us. Otherwise, we are ignoring His creation and this is a sign of ignorance, something which Pro has accumulated a lot of.
The problem is that it does not stop there, rather I am describing a personality type that is nit only applicable to Allah but slowly seems to be what all, at least male, supporters of Islam should be ready to be when faced with opposition that they see as getting in the way of Islam.
Male supporters should not be worshipped. Male supporters must protect their religion, this is why self defence is a thing. If the enemy attacks first, then Muslims attack. Very simple concept.
By getting in the way of Islam I mean literally that if your people or you, yourself, act or speak in a way that implies you have not submitted entirely to Allah as the follower deems fit, you should be first lashed and struck, allowed to repent and eventually either stoned to death brutally, hung, beheaded with an Islamic type blade or some such equivalent mortal ending.
Absolutely incorrect. It is a lack of understanding from Pro, misconceptions, misinterpretations and a sign of ignorance from this debater. There is no where in the Quran where it says innocents must be killed. Now of course those who disrespect Islam by tarnishing the religion by doing such acts like murder, rape etc, will be punished. In the UK, it is a punishment via prison. In the Sharia Law countries, it is a punishment via a more physical route. However first of all, it is not that simple. Lets say there was a murder. There needed to have been witnesses. These witnesses will testify in a court, and the procedure takes a long time because the trial for the criminal will be fair for him. And when he is found guilty, the necessary punishment will be in place. If a person commits treason then it is capital punishment, much like the US. There is a sense of cherry picked points already from Pro, a complete misunderstanding on the fairest of religions.
encourage one to instil terror in others but to specifically show mercy and reason only when they are truly scared straight and conform to the submission to Allah.
There is again, nowhere in the Quran that says to instil fear and terror into people to join the religion. As well as there is no where in the Quran that says to force people to join the religion or die. Disgusting acts of lying from Pro here, just to fit it into his narrative that Islam is a violent religion. Has not even addressed any of my points, just went on a rant about Islam. Shameful.
The idea of mercy in Islam is consistently based on after fear-based respect has been earned
Not at all. The Quran teaches when you commit a sin, repent and Allah will forgive it. Where is the fear in that? This again proves that Allah is not a warlord or a God of wrath, but a fair, just and merciful one who wants his creation to go to heaven. Allah made these rules. Humans have free will. They can either follow or not follow. There actions will lead them to a place of goodness or torture. It is not Allah who sends people to hell because of His choice, but the peoples choice of what they did in this life.
Interestingly, it would seem that Muhammad PBUH in particular was a softie behind closed doors and the more public he had to interact with an infidel/sinner/opposer the more ruthless he would be... this implies that grand acts of terror could indeed be seen as genuinely Islamic.
The Prophet had endured hardships during his lifetime. He had to endure, the Quraysh distorting his message, calling him a liar and defaming him. There was garbage thrown at him. He was ridiculed by the Quraysh. This tribe boycotted Muslims. He had the insides of a camel thrown at him. Non Muslims would torture Summayah and eventually shove a spear in her private parts and leave her for dead. Then tied Yasir to two horses and ripped his body apart. The people at Taif had thrown rocks at him and abuse. The Prophet had the choice to destroy the city of Taif yet declined because her thought people would still have interest in Islam. Bilal got tortured and whipped. He fought the battles for Islam, to protect the religion form oppression. Yes on some occasions he fought back but these were because of treason being committed, this is because of the disrespect towards his religion. It is ridiculous that you say the Prophet (PBUH) was ruthless, yet the opposite of that.
In fact assassinations if the Islamic variety (brotherhood of Hashashin) were specifically structured to be executed in a way that was very much seen, known about, bloody/gory and terror-instilling.
No idea of which assassinations you are talking about. The Sharia Law is meant to be a deterrent from doing bad things.
Even the bit about Khalid ibn al-Whalid is untrue.
Concluding this mockery of a debate, Pro has given nothing. No quotes, no reference, no scripture. This is extremely difficult now as he said he will bring the scripture in his next argument. However I only have 1 left and it would be very hard for me to address it all. It is Pro's tactic to give me as less time and space to counter argue his points. Pro should be ashamed of himself with his defamation of Islam with no evidence, even if he said he will give it.
Pro has not given any sufficient evidence of Islam being a terroristic religion, just wanted to turn it into a emotional belief over Islam instilling terror. Disgraceful and disgusting.
Pro
#4
The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.
And from wherever you go out [for prayer], turn your face toward al-Masjid al-haram. And wherever you [believers] may be, turn your faces toward it in order that the people will not have any argument against you, except for those of them who commit wrong; so fear them not but fear Me. And [it is] so I may complete My favor upon you and that you may be guided.
And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.
And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient,
Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse,
Except for those who repent and correct themselves and make evident [what they concealed]. Those - I will accept their repentance, and I am the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.
The skipping verses is not at all to deceive you, it is 'filler lines' where the key aspects I go for in Round 1 are muddied in the waters if one reads the filler lines. What is actually communicated in this chapter, especially in this part but throughout the Qur'an is the idea that the approach to take in Islam is to be as violent as necessary to instil fear (AKA terror) in those that one deems have stood in the way or 'concealed' the truth that would lead one to submit to Allah.
If this is just chapter 2 of 114, what do you thinks comes later? Ironically that is the most explicit point in the Qur'an where it is made crystal clear that those slain in the way of Allah are basically completely forgivable murders, considered not even slaughters but illusions for they are not really dead is that was the basis of the killing. This means not only do have indications that the aim is to instil fear but we have explicit indication that it is a very intertwined part of appreciating Allah to blackmail those that won't, to do so and to go as far as killing (or 'slaying') in order to achieve this goal.
Let's read the following verses regarding how to deal with Jews and Christians:
[2.88] And they say: Our hearts are covered. Nay, Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe.[2.98] Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers[2.121] Those to whom We have given the Book read it as it ought to be read. These believe in it; and whoever disbelieves in it, these it is that are the losers[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.[4.50] See how they forge the lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Please read the last one there very carefully. The reason it is extremely important to read is that it follows a verse just above that preaches hypocritically that to slay one man (they mean if a Jew slays) is as bad as one who has slain all men. Remember that it is said in Chapter 2 that to slay those who are concealing or in the way of Allah is not really to kill or murder, it just 'appears' that way and they are really alive beyond one's perception. This kind of hypocritical idea that one labelled as 'enemy' of Islam can be slain and all others can do one thing wrong and be called absolutely unforgivable sinner worthy of being murdered crucified etc (it literally says murdered, not slain or killed by the way) is a thematic 'one rule for us' which enables/supports the moral groundwork that terrorists justify their actions based upon and
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Again, take strong note of the verses, these are just the first 5 chapters of a the 114 chapter Qur'an and already early on it sets out a clear foundational idea that Islam is to be directly opposed to Judaism and Christianity, with fervor.
(same source as before)
[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.[6.146] And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.[59.2] He it is Who caused those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book to go forth from their homes at the first banishment you did not think that they would go forth, while they were certain that their fortresses would defend them against Allah; but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts; they demolished their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers; therefore take a lesson, O you who have eyes![62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.
This verse implies that the Qur'an sets out an idea that if Jews were really true to their ideology they themselves would be invoking death in others (the only alternative understanding is that they should kill themselves which doesn't help Pro either way).
Sadism and instilling fear in enemies of Allah are consistently encouraged throughout the Qur'an. Every time there is a disclaimer that instructs one to cease the abuse and terror-instilling chastisement, beating, slewing etc once the remaining people associated with the victim as well as the victim themselves 'repent' and find themselves bowing before Allah. The problem for Pro is that if terror driving obedience is the framework of Islamic enforcement, this means that not only are the terrorists just rule-bending Islamic obeyers but Islamic/Sharia regimes themselves are merely using rules/laws to mask the parallels they have to terrorist organisations, since the fear they run on in order to get what they want is nearly identical in nature.
I have run out of characters and wish to focus on the Hashashin, as for Khalid ibn al-Whalid, please read about him here.
I will like to focus more on the Hashashin and the inclusion of fear and disregard for rules as central to Islamic warfare tactics.
The Assassins were a secretive Islamic sect of ascetic religious fanatics that carried out political murder and were active in Iran and Syria from the 11th to the 13th century. They came into being at the end of the 11th century and lasted for about a 150 years until their impregnable cliffside castle in Persia was breached by the Mongols. Some regard them as being the first terrorists and sowing the seeds of terrorist thought and tactics in the Islamic world. They called themselves “fidayeen” (“martyrs”), which is what many suicide bombers today call themselves. [Source: Pico Iyer, Smithsonian magazine, October 1986]
Marco Polo described the Assassins as men who were drugged with hashish wine and then taken to a lush valley where all of their sexual desires were fulfilled to gain their loyalty. From then on the leader of the sect, the story goes, could order these men to carry out any command, even brutally killing themselves. Leaders of kingdoms in the Middle East hired members of the sect for great sums of money to carry out assassinations.
ibid
The assassins were founded and first led by Hasan-i Sabbah, who became an avid follower of Ismailism (a Shiite sect now ruled by the Aga Khan) after he nearly died from a wasting disease when he was 17. After being thrown in jail on several occasions for his radical beliefs he wandered the desert and attracted a group of followers, made up primarily of other outcasts, that grew into the assassins.
ibid
De Sacy seems to have proved that they were called Hashishiya or Hashishin, from their use of the preparation of hemp called Hashish; and thence, through their system of murder and terrorism, came the modern application of the word Assassin. The original aim of this system was perhaps that of a kind of Vehmgericht, to punish or terrify orthodox persecutors who were too strong to be faced with the sword. I have adopted in the text one of the readings of the G. Text Asciscin, as expressing the original word with the greatest accuracy that Italian spelling admits. In another author we find it as Chazisii (see Bollandists, May, vol. ii. p. xi.); Joinville calls them Assacis; whilst Nangis and others corrupt the name into Harsacidae, and what not.
ibid
Round 3
Con
#5
Wow! I have so much to speak about with not so much characters to do it. First of all, I like Pro's commitment to the cause here and is demonstrated by the cherry picked quotes and nonsense arguments, I will have to explain so much. But, I will try.
What is actually communicated in this chapter, especially in this part but throughout the Qur'an is the idea that the approach to take in Islam is to be as violent as necessary to instil fear (AKA terror) in those that one deems have stood in the way or 'concealed' the truth that would lead one to submit to Allah.
Right. Let me debunk this. Allah says fear him only, do not fear the people nor anything else but Him. This is because He is the one who judges us, it is not as if I am not going to fear Him. He has laid out the punishments in hell to those who commit more sins that good and ones that do not fear Allah. But when we do the sins, we can repent and Allah will forgive us, as he is the most merciful. 113/114 chapters of the Quran begin with introducing Allah as the most merciful.
If this is just chapter 2 of 114, what do you thinks comes later
The Quran does not progressively get more 'violent'. This is a myth.
Ironically that is the most explicit point in the Qur'an where it is made crystal clear that those slain in the way of Allah are basically completely forgivable murders
Those who have slained in the way of Allah are the ones who have followed the holy war criteria. One point of this is attack when the enemy attacks. So self defence. Those who have slained in the way of Allah is self defence. The oppressor is the enemy according to Islam, which means once he oppresses, it is right to attack back. Common knowledge.
especially in this part but throughout the Qur'an is the idea that the approach to take in Islam is to be as violent as necessary to instil fear
Muslims are not told to be violent to innocents. Only when someone has done something wrong is when Muslims can use violence according to the holy war criteria. Yet again, self defence.
[2.88] And they say: Our hearts are covered. Nay, Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe.
[2.98] Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers
What is wrong with this verse? If the disbelievers consider Allah their enemy, why shouldn't it work the other way round? Double standards. And don't say Allah will forgive anyone. Allah will only forgive anyone if they believe in him, otherwise why is the wrongdoer blessed with forgiveness?
[2.121] Those to whom We have given the Book read it as it ought to be read. These believe in it; and whoever disbelieves in it, these it is that are the losers
Whoever disbelievers in the book are the losers. Doesn't mention any killing or murder, it just says they are the losers. This is referring to they have 'lost life'. They will see on the Day of Judgement.
4:46 Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief
Yet again, for the day of judgement
[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violators of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.
Yet again, for the day of judgement
[4.50] See how they forge the lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.
This is literally talking about something being a sin. Does this verse allow terrorism?
[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.
Why did you not add 4:161? I will add it here, silly you!
4:161 taking interest despite its prohibition, and consuming people’s wealth unjustly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
This talks about the wrongdoers of Jews so as they have committed wrongdoings unless you say taking interest despite prohibition and stealing peoples money unjustly are righteous actions? Which I don't think you will agree with, so it is justified.
5:13 yet again talks about the day of judgement. By the way, Allah cursing them literally means they are branded as the disbelievers and they will recieve punishment in hellfire. No verse that you pointed out so far says that Islam is a advocate to terrorism. Lets carry on.
[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
This is a positive? Literally says whoever murders 1 person, it is like he has killed the whole of humanity. And whoever has saved 1 person, it is as if he has saved all of humanity. This actively opposes unjust violence.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Treason? Death penalty in the US for treason? This is literally pointing out that whoever commits treason and commits acts of terror, violence etc should be murdered. And yet again, justified. But you are just used to seeing murderers, rapists etc in prison 10 years and then let out, letting the criminal away with it.
Please read the last one there very carefully.
[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favourites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.
This is what he was referring to.
This verse just means if you truly think that you are the chosen people, then wish death upon yourselves and be ready for the day of judgement. And then 62:7 states 'But they will never wish for that because of what their hands have done.1 And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of the wrongdoers.' This is referring to the changing of the Torah.
slay one man (they mean if a Jew slays) is as bad as one who has slain all men.
But then it also says according to your logic, if a Jew saves 1 man, then it is as if he has saved all of humanity. Why didn't you include this bit in? Double standards?
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
This is another misconception given by Pro. How much are we on now? 4,5,6? Let me debunk this one.
The Christians and the Jews were on the side of the Quraysh. The Muslims were at war with the Quraysh (self defence). However it is only certain Jews and Christians as one time the Jews sided with the Quraysh and the Christians didn't. So again, Pro took this out of context.
[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.
Does not correlate to the topic.
[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.
Afterlife.
[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
Allah then again says if they do not repent, then they will be punished in the afterlife.
[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
Afterlife.
[6.146] And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
They had a rebellion, nice for you to leave that bit in, so if they attacked Islam, they can recieve their punishment justly.
59:2 no correlation to terrorism
By the way, just want to add, the topic of today is if Islam advocates terrorism, not violence. And Pro has given arguments about violence only with some mere mentions of terror and fear. Talk about avoiding the question.
62:6 I have already gone over this but this does not imply to kill themselves. It implies to die if they think they are right and if they think that they will be saved. However they won't.
Sadism and instilling fear in enemies of Allah are consistently encouraged throughout the Qur'an
Well of course, Muslims and non-Muslims have been instilled fear of Allah into them, not only the enemies. But this is because it is up to Allah to decide ones fate.
victim as well as the victim themselves 'repent' and find themselves bowing before Allah.
Because He was the one who created us?
The problem for Pro is that if terror driving obedience is the framework of Islamic enforcement, this means that not only are the terrorists just rule-bending Islamic obeyers but Islamic/Sharia regimes themselves are merely using rules/laws to mask the parallels they have to terrorist organisations, since the fear they run on in order to get what they want is nearly identical in nature.
Fear to Allah is what a believer should have. The terrorists groups such as ISIS etc make people fear them. This is not Islam as the Quran says 'do not fear people'. The sharia law is fine, it is a deterrent for crimes. If you don't want the punishment, do not do the crime. Also groups like ISIS will be one of the first people in hellfire.
Right, I don't have much characters left. So far, Pro has given 0 evidence to how Islam promotes/advocates terrorism. As I said in round 2, he will bring cherry picked quotes to the debate, and I was right. Onto the next point.
Khalid ibn al-Whalid. The article that Pro gave has no correlation to terrorism. This Muslim commander, committed no acts of terrorism. I think Pro has been quick to dismiss the criteria of the holy war. Muslims must only fight in self defence, not kill innocents nor babies nor women who are innocent. By the way, Khalid converted to Islam after the Prophet (PBUH) NEGOTIATED A PEACE TREATY AGAINST THE MECCANS, SOMETHING WHICH IS OPPOSITE TO TERRORISM. If Pro gives anything of Khalid's life before the conversion, it is invalid as he was not Muslim. So now this misconception about Khalid has been dismissed.
Onto the assassins. They are described like ISIS and the Taliban. I am not going to say much as there is nothing much to say. A group that acts unjustly to innocents, kills innocents, etc are not following Islam. It is as simple as that. I have proved this as well.
In conclusion,
Pro has given nothing in his second argument. Same with his first. His first had claims but no evidence. His second had 'evidence' yet no knowledge. Pro has proved nothing. Islam is not a terrorist religion, only one that condones violence under certain circumstances, also providing that the opposition is guilty of a crime.
Cherry picked quotes, a total misunderstanding from Pro here. Yet again another disgraceful argument with no backing and no knowledge about the beautiful religion of Islam.
This is my last argument so please take in all my points voters and vote Con.
Pro
#6
The fact of the matter is that Pro believes he won the debate because in one part of the Qur'an it implies one should hesitate to 'compel' people but the problem is that in many other parts of it, it is blatantly encouraging violent bullying and torment until the remaining people 'repent' out of sheer terror.
I will also like to state a disclaimer for law enforcement, just in case: I am not pro-Islam in this debate, I am preaching against it and find the support it enables mortifying. I need to say this because this entire debate from me could be taken as me producing propaganda for an Islamist extremist organisation but it is anything but and that's also why I focused so heavily on the origins of Islam when analysing an organisation such as Hashashin and the way Khalid ibn al-Whalid carried himself.
The point is that from the start of Islam, the concept of using terror to spread the religion has been paramount to its 'style' of warfare and maintaining control and power. Islam is extremely pro-retribution and its version or idea of rehabilitation is when one is conforming to it out of fear, 'repenting' is merely semantics if the repenting is done as a result of fear of murderous and painful retribution.
I believe my quoting of the Qur'an to highlight that I didn't lie or defame, I really understood the Islamic texts and demonstrated that they truly do say what I alluded to in Round 1 and expanded on in Round 2.
The fact is that the religious scriptures and actions of Islamic organisations or sects in the origins of the religion and therefore most authentic (a religion is in its purest and most unadultered form in the early days) show that Islam indeed supports the idea of politically-motivated fearmongering via assassination and such and that those slain in the way of Allah are not to even be thought of as dead so as to imply you didn't commit a murder for Allah to forgive you of.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Despite so much of the argument in this debate focusing on what's said in religious texts, I find that what it comes down to isn't so much who is right on those texts as who better addresses the topic. There are two very distinct visions of what the topic covers. Pro argues that a religion that says anything about instilling terror or pushing fear is supporting terrorism, whereas Con is much more focused on the specific acts that Islam supports and whether those constitute the act of terrorism. That may not sound like a big difference, especially as Pro does talk about many of the specific acts that Islam supports in R2, but in the end his case doesn't rely on those acts since he doesn't take the opportunity in R3 to defend those specific points. His focus is more holistic, talking about pushing terror rather than acts of terrorism.
The problem is that it's not quite that simple. Saying that others should feel terror, or even that anyone who disagrees with your belief system is due terror, isn't the same as endorsing terrorism. It may be interpreted that way by some, but both sides argue that interpretation can be messy. The question is whether this is a correct interpretation, and on that front, Con gives me a lot of reasons why the specific interpretations Pro derives from specific texts don't match up. Maybe he missed something meaningful, but I don't see Pro refer back to any specific quotes from his R2. Instead, he focuses on the holistic, which can only prop up his argument about how those of other faiths should/will feel rather than how those of the Islamic faith should act. Moreover, when there is agreement on the text focusing on actions that would inspire terror, it's unclear that that is terrorism because, as Con explains, those would be justified as self-defense. I don't see a response to that. There's an argument about retribution, but no direct link between retribution and terrorism. There's an argument about the behavior of Islamic organizations and sects being the most authentic, to which I see a number of rebuttals to specific organizations in R1 and to them more generally in R3. Even if I bought the latter point, I'm not sure why I should buy that the specific organizations and sects that commit to terrorism are authentic, while others are not.
Overall, I'm just not getting a clear link to the acts of terrorism that Pro would have to show Islam supports. The link to supporting acts of terrorism rather than just saying that others should feel fear for believing otherwise just isn't as solid as it should be, and dropping so much of Con's R3 responses doesn't do Pro any favors. I end up voting Con.
If you go heavy hitting in final round people see it as bad conduct and ignore any new points regardless, to me it was a very simple debate. I won't explain more as it will lead to me being labelled Islamophobic or worse... An Islamic extremist.
I have very little love for the faith and would even admit I have a fear of it. My beef isn't with any average Muslim at all, it is actually with Islam and that is maybe worse or better, I cannot tell.
I read the Qur'an and Hadith with an open mind, I used to resent people that preached against Islam and thought it was rude and disrespectful to disparage and tarnish a wonderful ideology... I didn't enjoy what I read.
I thought your last argument would be a bit more heavy hitting in my opinion. I can still lose this debate, but you should have exited a bit more stronger but it is what it is.
But yes, please understand both mine and Pro's points, take it in and again,
May the best man win
Please vote if the debate interests you, I understand how controversial it is.
I keep confusing Pro with con in this debate because the instigator is Con, sorry for this lexical error.
May the best debater win. My points have been finished. Your move, Pro
Get him rayhan, bring out your inner Muhammed Hijab.
it turns red when within 100 characters, it doesn't mean you are in the negative.
Is it possible to go over the character limit? I think I did it in one of my other debates and it was fine but I do not know if that is a glitch or not
I used all the characters I could use minus 5.
I haven't even seen that part yet, but with the cherry picked quotes, good job.
I said 'help Pro' I meant 'help Con'. I confused our sides sorry
I knew you were going to do this, lets see what happens
I have no interest in debating on Dms because what fun would that be? No one to see our points, our rebuttals and most importantly our failure. I would like to debate publicly and as you said you are not interested, so just stop diminishing Islam when you clearly have been watching to much David Wood and others to make this quote that you gave fit your narrative. All I am going to say regarding this quote, Muslims are not allowed to leave a mark, not allowed to hit the face and not allowed to cause pain to their wives, so how could men strike their wives with an intent to hurt them when they are not allowed. Men should only tap a woman, not hit them until blood flows. Misconceptions galore.
I'm not currently interested in debating about Islam again, it just becomes a semantics game of, "context" or no the word really means "insert word". Although, if you want to debate that quote inparticular in DM's we can do so as i understand the Arabic terminology PERFECTLY in that quote so you cant use the fact اضربوهن translated into "strike them" has multiple meanings as an argument against me.
I'm not a catholic Christian or really a Christian at that, I'm a pantheist, like Einstein and many modern philosophers. I could be said to be a Quaker if i were anything Christian but i don't follow the book. Read my current debate on, "all is one".
Again, you need to understand what a debate is. I would happily answer these for you but please make a debate if you want me to answer them, preferably 2 days writing time because I have Eid tomorrow. Also if you want to play at that game, women have to be quiet in churches, Jesus called a woman a dog. This is just me showing you double standards.
Lets debate. You make it, you be pro, call it Islam supports oppression against women or something like that, and I will join it. And then we can debate in a proper environment, this comment section is not a debate platform
"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." 4:34
This verse is fairly self-explanatory. It instructs Muslims on how women should be treated. The verse states that men are in charge of women and how they spend their wealth, good women are those who obey, and if a woman disobeys then her husband can warn her, forsake her, and finally beat her. This verse clearly demonstrates that women are inferiors in multiple ways. The first is that men are in charge of them and their wealth, this sets a hierarchy among the genders where men are placed above women.
These are both misconceptions on your behalf, if you want to debate about Islam oppressing/hating/being unfair to women then be my guest and start a debate and let me know. If you do not want to, please do not speak ill about my religion
"Islam is not mysognistic"
meanwhile Muslim women cannot marry non Muslim men, but Muslim men can marry non Muslim women. Girls are said to be less intelligent in the Quran by prophet Muhammad.
I appreciate your concerns, however Islam is the most beautiful religion out there. It is not a pacifist religion, you have to consider that. Yes there are some parts of violence there, but all this is justified. I say time and time again, I will not leave the religion of Islam. No one pressured me, I was born in a Muslim household. I love the religion of Islam and in no way shape or form will I leave. I know every single quote that non-Muslims use against us, I can rebuke these, just as long as they are willing to listen. Islam is not a misogynistic faith because it respects women, all to the point where non-married Muslim men cannot even touch a women's hand, out of respect. I have definitely made up my own mind, and if someone can prove that Islam is a wrong faith, be my guest. I can use these arguments and crush them. I will have 12000 words left. I don't have much space, but I will try my best.
My faith also has nothing to do with starting wars nor oppressing innocents nor forcing non Muslims to be Muslim. Not even homophobia as if you wanna be gay then be it however do not be Muslim and vice versa.
I know there are people in countries such as Iran and Iraq etc that oppress people and I know that you think it is to do with Islam. However, don't you just think these people that are doing these things, are using their free will? Because it is blatantly obvious. I will be responding to every single one of your quotes and clearing up every single misconception, all in the space of 12000 words. Whatever happens after is the voters choices.
I do not wish to attack Christianity. The reason being, I respect all religions. My religion, Islam, teaches to respect all faiths. 'Surah Al-Ankabut verse 46 states: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
I know that you don't hate Muslims, however you hate the faith. And to this, I say that is your opinion. However calling Islam a barbaric faith when it teaches to be peaceful until the last resort is ironic because I assume that you are Christian. This is not me attacking Christianity, but just calling the double standards. I believe Christianity teaches peace but if you want to call my religion barbaric then why does Jesus call a woman a dog? Why should all babies be killed and women taken as slaves? I know Christianity does not promote these things, but it is in your scripture. So this is just me calling out the double standards. Please do not answer these questions as I know what you will say, just me calling it out. Rhetorical, if you may.
I see from your profile that you are approximately just 16 (the username matches so I am quite sure) if that really is your birthday it must suck that new year's overlooks you (but not as much as Dec 31st).
I am not here to bully a teenager, Muslim or not and by bully I don't mean beat in a debate I mean that I do not resent you for the religion you were raised into, pressured to adhere to and that your family would no doubt reject you and isolate you if you parted ways with (I am presuming but this is based on a lot of experience, documentaries, books and knowledge on Islamic communities).
I do not resent you for being raised Muslim 'rayhan', at all. I wish you the best on your journey in becoming an adult and starting to make your own mind up for yourself and I ironically and unironically all at once pray that you find a way out of the misogynistic, homophobic, pro-circumcision (it doesn't rule it out for women btw and this is practised on some in the name of Islam), extremely warmongering faith.
If you wish to attack Christianity, be my guest, you can attack anything you want (intellectually), I welcome it and would stand up to a racist cunt who abused you, without a second thought (well, depends how much our lives would mutually be at risk but still I'd stick up for you). You have a very wrong idea of me, I don't resent Muslims, I respect that many have tried to adapt Islam to modern times but I do not understand why they cling to a blatantly barbaric faith. I understand if that offends you and if you cannot like me but I don't hate you, I can already tell you are a good thinker.
I have already answered this in round 2. It is not the word of God. God is not a deceiver. They think that the word 'maakir' and the root word 'mkr' have the same meaning. They are decepted by this view. The root word does not always mean the actual word. For example, the root word for 'vowel' is 'vocalis' and this means 'relating to the voice'. By this logic, the word 'vowel' means 'relating to the voice'. Where is the sense in that? There is nowhere in the Quran that says spread Islam by the sword either. I know exactly what you think of Islam and the verses you give me, I know trust me' are going to be cherry picked and I will be explaining all of them. However, as you are the master of deception, I will not have anymore arguments left, so your last round will probably decide that you will win. But we will see. Please continue to explore the angle of your view of Islam fully.
What is it they are quoting and referring to? Is it the word of Allah or no?
Regardless, I will not be Islamic in spirit and will 'lay down my sword' here. Plus, you don't know what I really think or not about Islam, though I am not going to pretend the verses aren't right there in front of you.
I will explore all the angles fully, including an interesting angle of how Islam constantly teaches to doubt laws themselves if one thinks they stand in the way of Allah.
Of course you quote an article from wikiislam known for its islamophobia. There is a donate button top left of the page, and it redirects you to donate to ex Muslims. I am not amused.
I thank you dearly for this compliment but let us both remember who the greatest deceiver of them all is.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_the_Best_Deceiver_(Qur%27an_3:54)
The dilemma you gave me is now I cannot explain all the points properly as I only have 1 left. Master of deception you are, voters only see 1 side to the story
Worry not, all will come in round 2.
The test is to follow the religion of Islam. There are things you have to give up, alcohol, sex before marriage, smoking etc and this is not only good for you, but part of the test. People get tested in different ways. The Quran is the book of guidance as well as the Hadith being the supported. Look into the Quran and the Hadith and let me know what you do not get, is incorrect and unlawful. I will answer it
The pragmatic answer is the fact the universe has always existed in some form and is eternal. The only reason the something from nothing theory came about was due to Einstein's theories not working at the quantum level, we will soon come to a point where we know the universe has simply always existed, as we already know energy cannot be created or destroyed.
To use an analogy, if life is a test for us, it's almost as if God has given us a test with questions we haven't been given revision for or haven't learned anything about. Is it then the students' fault for failing this test because they are unaware of the answers? To further illustrate the analogy, suppose you fail this test and are thrown into a meat grinder, but if you succeed, you are rewarded with unlimited riches. Would anyone in their right mind willingly take this test? Would we consider a teacher just for implementing this test? if it wasn't an omnipotent God but an ordinary person we would see them like the antagonist in the SAW franchise, horror film.
No scientist can say how the universe was created. Because it just keeps on going back and back. Big bang theory, still doesn't answer it. Because where did the matter come from. no such thing as nothing, so there always has to be something. cannot be created by another universe as the universe is dependant on time and space. you can name nothing that is independent of everything except God. This is why only God can create the universe. and all non believers go to hell eternally. Why should it concern you if you don't believe in the Islamic version of hell? you can disregard it if you don't believe and we will see what happens
I'm unsure why you find eternal damnation fair for simply being ignorant. Many scientists are sincere to know the truth of their existence, according to Islam they will rot forever, eternally. For simply being unaware. How would you justify eternal damnation to someone who asks a question like this? You can be a truly loving person and all accepting, do immeasurable good for humankind in charity work, but simply for not knowing God exists and therefore refraining belief, you will suffer forever.
Lol, untrue. Maybe you are the sceptic
Being smart and a deceiver are not mutually exclusive. He uses underhanded tactics when he's losing. He Starts unplugging microphones and censoring you. He would never upload a video of himself losing a debate. He also deletes THOUSANDS of comments on his videos to keep his viewers from questioning him or his followers on his takes. Watch Cosmic Skeptics video on him.
That's just your opinion. He has great intellect, not a deceiver. Whatever he says about Islam js true bur just has a different speech to him. Very good speaker, bullied David Wood in all his debates
I remember you bringing up Mohammad hijab in one of our debates. This man is a snake, a deceiver. You should watch Cosmic Skeptic on him. Cosmic Skeptic is a philosopher from Oxford University. You will see how much of a deceiver he is when he debates someone who knows their stuff. He will use any tactic to make him and Islam look in a good light.
I believe it's a really good argument. At least 20% of the Quran is about nonbelievers and how repulsive they are. I recall listening to the audiobook for it and hearing for at least the first two hours about how none believers will go to hell and how much they will suffer. After that, I lost interest in hearing the the rest and shut it off. When we refer to nonbelievers as lower than creatures, It appears clear why Muslim extremists can do what they can against non believers when the Quran talks about how stupid, lame and evil they are for hours on end of endless writing.
Please read then
Yes he may have a surprise for me, however talking about individuals does not represent the entire religion. Hitler was a Christian etc. Doesn't make sense. Needs to be the teachings of said religion
That's why i chose to only talk in the scripture and not people. As people aren't the book. But maybe he has something up his sleeve.
Islam and its teachings do not support terrorism, yes some individuals do but not the religion
In fact 'terror' has been central to Islam in both its spread and its maintenance of authority within its realm from start to now.
Not in the sense of extremists with rocket launchers and bombs but in the sense of true, paralysing terrorism done by sufi leader and sultan to the populace.
That said, do not be confused... Do not be misinformed of the history of Islam and its evolution.
https://www.historicalindex.org/what-is-the-hashashin.htm
Tell me about Khalid ibn al-Walid
You will get schooled in 12,000 characters per Round, believe me.
Just no one is viewed as the winner i suppose.
Lol, good debate, could go either way. forgot to cite my texts but I feel like we both made good points. what happens if no one votes?
never mind, i see you're con now. My bad my bad.
I see i've convinced you! xD
Obviously the person is not Muslim, he is saying that Islam promotes terrorism
Yeah I saw that. I don't know whether or not the person in the debate is another Muslim, but I haven't read it in its entirety.
But you are biased. I have the same debate with me being pro but the opposite topic.
This would be too easy of a debate for pro. Islam obviously supports terrorism. This is simply a fact.