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.
Schedule it whenever you would like.
1 week writing
1 month voting
20,000 words
I'd be happy to schedule it. I have two upcoming debates with AustinL and Whiteflame.
And there is it, the outrage has come out of you. If one is not following Islam, they are not following the Quran also
But you won't get that. Send a debate request to me, if you want to debate on this issue, instead of commenting
"they are not following islam"
But they ARE following the Quran and pedophile rapist Muhammad.
Last I checked, the Quran is the gold standard of Islam, not imams and councils.
I don't get emotional and outraged unless one falsifies my religion. Otherwise, if you're telling me I'll get outraged, chances are, I probably won't.
I can't wait for your arguments
Name a terrorist attack that Muslims have committed that exceeds the amount of people affect that the US have committed.
Even if groups like ISIS are still around, they are not following Islam. They are killing innocents, this is not the teachings of Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion, that does not advocate terrorism. How can you reply to me, a non Muslim, by saying Islam promotes terrorism? Where is the proof? Where is the Quranic verses and Hadith's that consider to kill and fight INNOCENT people and spread terror to INNOCENT people? There is no such thing, get out
Everything depends on interpretation.
Oh for sure the US military commits acts of terror all the time. But so does Islam. Believing both isn't mutually exclusive.
Virtually every government commits acts of terror. That makes them all terrorists. Iran, though, commits significantly more than most, and Islam is its religion.
Ergo, Islam is a terror organization.
Islam does not promote terrorism at all lol.
Also your claim is false. the usa killed 3 million people in Iraq, a genocide of the native Americans, this is the largest terrorist attack organisation, secular democracies
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorism.htm
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorist.htm
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/ACLURM001331.pdf
https://www.unaoc.org/repository/8412Jihad,%20Holy%20or%20Unholy%20War,%20J.%20Esposito.pdf
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jihad-crime-and-internet-content-analysis-jihadist-forum
I could go on and on, but the point is, there's a reason Islam is the religion with the most amount of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
Which physical act of terror does Islam push? Just curious to know
It may be too late to chime in here, but to me, if a religion pushes acts of terror, it is pushing terrorism. RM conclusively proved Islam pushes acts of terror. So it is a terrorist religion. Wish I could have voted but I'm seeing this too late.
I agree your opponent's opening argument holds no weight and can be seen as hearsay; however, "It has been an absolutely 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 civilized debate and has now turned it into an emotional back and forth" this is hypocritical, within the same breath you are condemning the very acts you to are partaking in by making that statement.
LOL. Islam is the only?
The Holy War Critera is something which you may not have heard of
-Enemy has to attack first to go to war
-Innocents must not be killed
-Wildlife and the environment must not be harmed
These 3 things dismiss every quote that you can think of
Islam absolutely supports terrorism. What does Allah say about unbelievers?
"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them," Allah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: "Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites! ... Hell shall be their home, an evil fate."
I took away that trying to determine which group is authentic is too difficult to manage anything meaningful for either side. That uncertainty wasn’t biased against you, though considering that you had the burden of demonstrating that Islam supports terrorism, it meant you lacked a means to do so.
The assassins I already went over. Very quickly, not following Islam, like ISIS, should be condemned
That is that out of the way
Then Khalid, you never gave me anything that he did which was a terrorist act. Remember the definitions, and you can give the terrorist acts that Khalid had committed.
most voters, including whiteflame do not respect or allow brand new stuff in final round.
Terrorism was a central part to Islam from its early days, whether by conquering and pillaging or hashashin style assassination.
You had 3 rounds with 10k characters each. You had the last round with 9000 characters left. I had the same amount of characters as you. I never said the only non-aggressive ones are authentic, I just said that terrorism is not supported. There was no response to self defence as whiteflame had already voted.
You need to accept it and be the bigger man
I didn't say the others are not, it's Con saying that only the non-aggressive are authentic, your RFD is flawed but it's fine, the character limit really inhibited my ability to reveal how many quotes support it.
How do you define 'support'? I define it as enables and lays the groundwork for.
Please leave a vote
Not another one lol, imma challenge you to a debate
In his inaugural address of January 20, 2017, the newly sworn-in president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, announced that “We will […] unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”.
I am not changing any topic. I simply asked you to provide me with some quotes that tell Muslims to kill innocents, that tell Muslims to act unjustly etc. That was and is my challenge,
The actions of Khalid. What did Khalid do? Did he commit terrorism? Same with the Prophet. Give me evidence.
You have a complete misconception about women in Islam, I have a debate where the opponent forfeited look at that.
Gay people I have no problem with. Obviously my religion condemns them. Lets get you educated. If some Muslims are gay, then they are gay. But it is a test. Only if they act upon being gay is it then punishable. And even that, you need 4 witnesses to punish a gay person. 4! So if a gay person has sex with another person of the same gender where 4 witnesses can see, then only is it punishable. But if it is done in a bedroom and there was not any witnesses then it is none of my business, simple as that. Now hopefully that answers your question. Gay people in Islam can be gay but not act upon it. It is part of the greater Jihad. Every day struggles, such as praying 5 times a day, it is hard but you have to have a strong iman. Same with eating non-haram foods, not drinking alcohol etc. It is a test.
Feminism I have no hatred to. Islam does not teach that women are meant to be degraded and they are not important. There is an entire chapter in the Quran about a woman. A man is not allowed to hurt a woman, not even leave a mark and not hurt her. A woman is entitled to rights such as working, voting, inheritance rights, is exempt of all financial liabilities such as debt if the man can pay it etc etc. I have a debate on this as well, so feel free to check it out.
I am not saying you are a bad person. I am saying you need to open your eyes. You can hate Islam, Muslims and the Quran. But you need to think why. Are you claims justified? If you make a claim, you have to back it up with the sufficient evidence. If you cannot do that, then your claims are invalid. Simple rules and laws of a debate. If your claims are not justified, then ask yourself why are you still believing in them? This is following blind claims. Where they don't have a base and are just there in place to set an agenda and a bias. Let it go man. I am just guessing here that you are around 20. That means if you die old, hopefully you do, then you have another 60 years on this earth. Let go of the bias and learn. If you don't want to learn, let go of the silly claims
There are a lot of things to clear up. You are a grown up, I am assuming you are over 18, over 20 even. If you are that age, then surely you must have the knowledge. If not then alas, I am here to clear things up.
The Quran is not violent from the get go. It is not violent at all. However it is not a pacifist book. Violence is allowed under circumstances such as self defence, which is morally acceptable. I don't think you are an Islamophobe, you have the capability to debate and are very intelligent, however not on Islam. The sooner you learn, the sooner your attitude will change.
The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) marriage to Aisha. Lets clear that up.
-He married her at 6 years old. Yet he waited until 9, for consummation. Why did he wait? If he was truly a a groomer, why did he wait 3 years?
- Girls got married very young 1400 years ago. If you are from the UK, you would know that 100 years ago, the legal age to marry was 12. Imagine 1400 years ago. When a girl turns 9 years old, she begins to hit puberty. This signifies being an adult, more mature.
-If we look at the lifetime of the Prophet, he never committed any sins. You may disagree, but the rest of the 'things' he did which people think are wrong, are not wrong, just need to be explained.
-1400 years ago, girls marrying at a young age was common. Many people did it. The Prophet married 13 women. Nearly all were widows whose husbands died in the wars and Allah commanded the Prophet to marry them because they were grieving etc.
These are all the things that happened in the Prophets lifetime
- The Quraysh were defaming him and distorting his message, they accused him of becoming a poet, a liar and insane
-A woman would throw garbage at him every single day yet he never retaliated.
-The Quraysh were ridiculing him and called him a madman whenever he was spotted to discourage him
-The Quraysh boycotted him and the Muslims. They would ban doing business with them, talking and giving food to them. Even his Uncle joined in
-He had the insides of a camel thrown at him
-Non Muslims would torture Summayah and eventually shoved a spear in her private parts and left her for dead
-Yasir was tied to two horses and had his body ripped apart
-The people at Tarif abused him and threw rocks at him, he had the option to destroy the city and refused
-Bilal was tortured, got whipped and had rocks on his body
Many other things happened and he forgave them. This narrative of your description of him is simply untrue.
I know how this works, the more candid and blunt I become the more you play into the narrative of painting me as a brainwashed Islamophobe, deflection is your entire 'thing', you and all true fundamentalists do this.
You are indeed a fundamentalist, I didn't think so at first but it is clear that you think your interpretation of Islam is the only correct one and that people can't redefine it.
What is your approach to gay people and feminism btw?
No, you are correct, it is violent from the get-go which is more horrifying. It goes from blatantly aggressive and spiteful to wishy washy by the end.
It is actually the opposite of what happens in the Hadith, where Muhammad grows more and more narcissistic and sociopathic as it goes along even truly justifying grooming a 6 year old girl and raping her at 9 which was not at all normal back then whatsoever, it is even said how shocked and resistant the parents were until he basically strongarmed them with 'it is me asking, how dare you question it' which is also how he got 5 wives while limiting others to 4.
Muhammad was completely full of himself and in these days if someone set out saying they were in touch with a god they call some new fancy name and drew symbols for Allah that symbolise the pitchfork of Satan and even have the Arabic 6 6 6 in it, we'd be like um... okay buddy, let's get you on some meds.
You are now completely changing the topic to 'promotes' as opposed to supports or condones. Islam doesn't literally in the scripture directly command that you have to do acts of terror, instead both the scripture, the actions of Khalid alongside Muhammad and the Hashashin and many ancient Islamic leaders imply that the foundation of Islam is violent, brutal and barbaric to women, disbelievers and any native cultures where they 'colonised' (they didn't just colonised they completely blackmailed pure, nationwide conversion).
First of all, the Quran doesn't get more violent as it goes on. Nor does it get more peaceful. It is not in chronological order.
Secondly, I answered every quote.
Now you don't have to believe Islam promotes terrorism
There you go! Have fun,
Unless you want to give me quotes that I did not answer?
It is not a biased answer, it is common sense. If the Quran states kill people in self defence, then it isn't terrorism right? Unless you want to tell me it doesn't say in self defence? But look, you are too biased to even debate. Let go of it and just think,
anything else?
I gave you some, the first 5 chapters on their own already set out the foundation of Islam as spiteful and viciously aggressive to anything it sees as standing in the way of its viral spread.
Ehyeh gave you plenty in the other debate, you're not considering how to read them differently to your biased way and it is you, not us, ignoring what's written which is why we use the quotes in the debate and you avoid them when explaining them away.
If you have read the Quran and Hadith, then give the quotes to your claims. If you cannot then your claims become invalid and respectfully go back to school. Its mad how I am the 16 year old and have more common sense!
I have read the Qur'an, Hadith and looked at Islamic history and present stories of child brides, acid attack victims and many other ex-muslim horror stories.
Tommy Robinson has nothing to do with it.
Or are you too ignorant to actually say 'I am wrong'. All I am asking for is a verse which says kill people who are innocent. If they are guilty then they are right to be killed. I am going back to self defence. If you cannot provide it, then it isn't true. If you cannot give your evidence, then it isn't true. But you won't give evidence, and it is down to 1 of 2 things. The first thing is you don't want to admit you are wrong, so you will beat around the bush with extreme claims. The second thing is you are biased. If you are from the UK, you have been listening to too much tommy Robinson, ukip party and the EDL. If you are from the US then it goes without saying, I feel sorry for you for you have been brainwashed by the media.
Both you, RationalMadman and ISIS have at least 1 thing in common. You both believe that Islam is a terror and war like religion. You have it all in common. You both think it. However the other 1.8 billion don't. Let go of the bias please and enjoy life
He is asking for a verse where it explicitly says you have to kill others, if we offer anything combining to amount to allowing and encouraging violence and brutality (even slaying) to achieve obedience and prove this is a theme throughout the Qur'an both domestically to one's wife and externally to non-believers and 'false Muslims' etc, he will ignore the combination and blame us for it.
A thing in which you and RationalMadman are not understanding is I am challenging you to give evidence of your claims. I will then respond to the 'evidence' and debunk it. If you cannot give any evidence then your claims are wrong and unsupported. Very simple. You and the other guy both believe that Islam is a religion that supports terrorism and I am here to tell you its not. And you are saying 'I am finding a way'. No, I am just giving the answer. Self defence is not terrorism, so that is not finding a way, that is me telling you what is going on. As you are both non-Muslims and I am a Muslim, surely you would know who has more knowledge. I am not saying I have the most in the world, but more than you too.
You both still have not proved that Islam is a terrorist centric religion. I would like you to give quotes and I would like you to listen to my answer. Then, if you actually listen, let go of the bias and be sincere, all your quotes that you give will be answered and you would maybe and hopefully change your mind. But if you are stuck on a mindset of 'Islam is a terrorist religion' and not listening to why it isn't, how can i prove it and make you change your mind? The answer is there, but some do not like to listen. 'It is not the eyes that are blind, it's the heart'
It seems like you would never change your mind, irrespective of what the Quran said. It could literally tell you straight up to kill all non-believers and you would still find a way to interpret it to your mental box. Not that I'm saying your mental box is wrong. You just cant prove it sufficiently for most people who aren't moderate Sunnis' to agree with you.
I am waiting for some quotes which prove that Islam promotes violence and terrorism to innocents
The problem is, every single quote that you showed me does not promote violence to innocents. I debunked every single quote. So the challenge still stands
Absolutely all quotes I will show you and historical evidence of the original Muslims (before anything could be twisted or changed, the original Muslims acted with unadultered Islam surely) you will keep ignoring it, saying it is 'self defense only'.
I found quite a few, so did ehyeh in the other debate.
Innocent Jews are a real thing. Innocent ex-Muslims are a real thing too.
Islam has also been known for intraviolence amongst sects, severely so, justified by scripture encouraging deepest hatred and aggression for so-called false followers.
Yh it's been a while so just reassuring that you got that challenge.
Find me 1 quote that promotes violence and terrorism to innocents in the Quran. I will debunk whatever quote you give.
Hope you enjoy this challenge
Those who don't want to listen are the ignorant ones. I challenge you to give me 1 quote from the Quran that promotes violence/terrorism to innocent people
The reason that Islam is the most converted to religion is primarily due to its aggressive dogmatism, which even Christianity is letting go of.
I am indeed uneducated on Islamic fanatic propaganda, as soon as I spot most propaganda I literally look away to avoid it brainwashing me. So yes, I am relatively uneducated, I skimread such nonsense.
The enemy needn't attack, they need only be deemed in the way of Islam's spread.
Are you not educated on this manner?
Muslims go to war for Allah, the only way war is permissable is if it is in self defence, hence the enemy attacking first.
There is nowhere in the Quran that says slay in the name of Allah unto innocents. This is because Islam does not teach to kill innocent people, I have said this in many of my arguments. Any verse that you supposedly cherry pick from the Quran about war, killing, fighting is most definitely not going to be about promoting terrorism, killing innocents nor oppressing innocents. If you can't see this then your a lost hope. Islam is the most converted to religion each year, it will be the most popular in 50 years. People are beginning to accept the message. But this narrative of Islam promoting violence when there is an option of peace is just not right and biased. Give me any quote in the Quran that is unjust and unfair and I will debunk it for you, I am that confident
Self defence? I don't see any self defence outlined at all, it just says those that stand in the way of Allah, nothing about the self.
It also specifies only to stop the inflicting of fear and agony when the person 'repents' and conforms to Islam.
I'll try to get to this as I don't want it to go without any votes. Controversial as it is, I think I can manage.
But surely if you read my responses to that debate about the quotes that you picked, you would be a bit more lenient. nearly all the quotes you gave are only for self defence and the holy war criteria and then you gave that bit about Khalid who did no such terrorist act after reverting to Muslim, even from that website you sent, then the assassins were not following Islam. So what do you still resent? Even Allah, He is God. Of course he should be feared. The reason being is if we commit sins, and remember Allah and his punishments in hell, then we can double look these sins and tell ourselves, is it really worth it? Then we do not commit those sins at all. Here is the great part which I forgot to add in the debate. If we want to do a sin and we actually double look ourselves and be sincere and do not commit that sin, it is a reward. This is how merciful God is. But you do you. Could I ask, do you follow a religion?