Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#4029
Islam is a peaceful religion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Well, it's been a while since I have debated, I think like a month or two. Anyway, this debate is about Islam being a peaceful religion. If anyone cannot see that, then they are mistaken.
I prefer voters to have no bias attached.
I am for Islam being a peaceful religion.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I welcome my opponent to this debate.
Islam
Islam is a monotheistic religion which was founded by Muhammed (PBUH) in the 7th Century, but that does not mean he was the first Muslim. We believe that Jesus, Abraham, Adam and all other Prophets were also Muslims because they submitted their will to the creator. Islam is one of the most peaceful religions contrary to what people think and say. Obviously there has been a lot of movements against Islam such as the EDL (English Defence League), Crusader Expedition and others all to try and shut down the religion. However, most of the general public have not given into these groups irrational thinking.
Realistically, I can explain why Islam is a peaceful religion, and I will a bit more, however I will also let the scripture do the talking.
5:32- 'whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely'
5:32- 'And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely'
These 2 quotes clearly explain that if one murders unjustly, then the deed will be as bad as one who murders the entirety of mankind. And whoever saves one, the deed is as good as if he has saved the entirety of mankind. This demonstrates that violence without justice is completely wrong.
There is also a very important quote which is shown below.
2:190- Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.
Islam promotes self defence, the idea that a Muslim should only attack once the enemy attacks first. This will probably be one of the biggest things to come up again and again if my opponent keeps on bringing quotes out of context, I am just warning the voters now, in the first round. I will address nearly everything, but if he brings something up a lot of times with no real conviction, I will simply move on and take the advantage.
The idea of self defence is also in correlation to the Holy War Criteria. This is a set of rules the Muslim army must follow in order to go to battle. I will list them below.
1. Muslims must not attack first, the enemy should and then it is lawful to defend yourselves
2. In war, plants nor animals nor wildlife should be harmed
3. In war, children and women should not be killed unjustly
4. A war must be lead by a religious leader
5. Innocent people must not be harmed
These 5 things will dismantle nearly every argument that Con brings to the table. Violence without reason is a highly prohibited act to carry out.
There will obviously be a mention of terrorist groups that Con will bring up such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. I will say this now, we are talking about Islam, not individuals who interpret things differently without context within Islam. One thing which the Muslim terrorists and people like Tommy Robinson have in common, is they both take verses out of context and believe it. It is clear as day, when a verse in properly contextualised, there is no issue with it. I hope Con can understand this.
That is my first argument. The main points which I bring is, Islam is promotes peace as the first option and then violence as the last option. And even when violence is used, it is an act of self defence. There is no verse in the Quran that states innocents should be killed.
Thank you.
Con
#2
Definitions:
Peaceful- Not involving war or violence.
I find the first argument in favor of Islam interesting. Hopefully, Pro can elaborate the context of these verses.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful.
Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers
Quran 9.5: When sacred months have passed, kill polytheists wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is forgiving and merciful.
Sounds like a very peaceful religion. It's truly a mystery how so many lunatics could have possibly taken these quotes out of context.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Peaceful- Not involving war or violence.
Islam does not state that is is a pacifistic religion. Peace is always the first option, this is what I mean by peaceful religion. Violence is always the last resort.
Lets go through these quotes.
24:2
This is a punishment. I don't understand Con's need to include this quote in because if a person commits a crime, a punishment is there for him. This is a system in every section of the world. It is a form of deterrent to stop others doing the crime and to stop others getting hurt. So it reinforces peace by reducing the number of crimes and distress.
4:34
Another interesting quote, don't know why Con has included this either. If wives commit ill conduct to their husbands, the husband must consult and speak with her first. Is this not peace? If the wife persists then he has to leave the bedroom and sleep somewhere else. Is this not peace? And finally, if the wife carries on and takes it further, the man must tap the wife gently as stated in 4:34. 'then discipline them ˹gently˺'
The reason why it says gently is because there are rules that a husband must follow to protect their wife.
He must not hit/slap the face
He must not cause her any harm
He must not leave a bruise or any type of mark on her
So taking notice of these rules and what is forbidden, how could a husband possibly damage his wife due to Islam?
Next.
5:38
Very intrigued to why Con has given this verse as well. It seems all have been questionable to be picked because none enforce violence without peace first or without reason.
So 5:38 states that a thieves hands to be cut off when they steal something. First of all, 4 witnesses must testify in court to make this a fair trial and if the criminal has committed the crime, it is a punishment. As the other one, this is also a deterrent. It minimises pain and suffering to the victims side and the witnesses need good reason to confess he is guilty. If a person steals an apple from a market stall to feed himself or his family, the court will take this into consideration if it ends up reaching court, and he won't be persecuted. Just another quote that Con has given which I can't understand why.
2:191
I mean this one is so out of context it is unbelievable. Con has purposely not included bits of the verse to make his argument seem right, however not so fast.
2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.
2:191- and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out.
And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there
2:192- But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2:193- Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution
If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.
I mean come on, the proof is in the pudding. It is a war verse. This is a classic example of self defence. Peace was the first option, however remember the Holy War criteria? That a Muslim cannot go to war with the enemy unless they attack first. Clearly the Muslims are not the aggressors, they are not told to cause terror, they are not told to kill or fight first. Only attack if the enemy attacks, that is the rule.
9:5
Another out of context, war verse.
9:1- you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with- It is a peace treaty that the believers are commanded to offer to the enemy.
9:2- 'You ˹polytheists˺ may travel freely through the land for four months'- The 4 months are referred to as the sacred months later on. The enemy have 4 months to agree to a peace treaty.
9:4- As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term- This is talking about the enemy who have not broken the peace treaty. The Quran tells the Muslims to honour the treaty until it's end term, and then the enemy will have 4 months to agree to a new one.
9:5- But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺
But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free
That should be self explanatory also. It is another war verse. It is talking about those who break the peace treaty. Islam commands Muslims to offer a peace treaty before going to war and again reinforces the idea that peace is always the first option and violence is the last.
Con's first argument has been pretty weak, not much to it except some cherry picking of quotes which I have answered in detail.
Look forward to Con's second argument.
Con
#4
Pro’s interpretations to quite a few of these verses is very charitable. Not the least of which are convincing.
Rebuttals:
“This is a punishment. I don't understand Con's need to include this quote in because if a person commits a crime, a punishment is there for him. This is a system in every section of the world. It is a form of deterrent to stop others doing the crime and to stop others getting hurt. So it reinforces peace by reducing the number of crimes and distress.”
Because this precisely illustrates the point I’m making. Believing that this is justifiable only encourages the assumption people have about this cult. The punishment for adultery is to be subject to 100 strikes from a whip, a consequence known as Flogging- A punishment in which the victim is hit repeatedly with a whip or stick.
Now the injuries sustained from flogging are very serious. There runs the risk of inflammation, blood loss, inflammation, and life-long psychological trauma. All of this occurred at a time when physicians didn’t have access to medications or antibiotics.
Pro is inadvertently defending a system of retribution that seeks to punish unmarried men and women for sleeping around. Draw your own conclusions about whether or not this system is acceptable.
“4:34Another interesting quote, don't know why Con has included this either. If wives commit ill conduct to their husbands, the husband must consult and speak with her first. Is this not peace? If the wife persists then he has to leave the bedroom and sleep somewhere else. Is this not peace? And finally, if the wife carries on and takes it further, the man must tap the wife gently as stated in 4:34. 'then discipline them ˹gently˺'”
There are many different translations of this verse, this one saying.:
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.
But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
It should therefore come as no surprise then that there would be a lot of domestic abuse under the religion of Islam.
“Very intrigued to why Con has given this verse as well. It seems all have been questionable to be picked because none enforce violence without peace first or without reason.So 5:38 states that a thieves hands to be cut off when they steal something. First of all, 4 witnesses must testify in court to make this a fair trial and if the criminal has committed the crime, it is a punishment. As the other one, this is also a deterrent. It minimises pain and suffering to the victims side and the witnesses need good reason to confess he is guilty. If a person steals an apple from a market stall to feed himself or his family, the court will take this into consideration if it ends up reaching court, and he won't be persecuted. Just another quote that Con has given which I can't understand why.”
I’m going to respond with this.:
"‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: ''The hand of a thief is to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar or more."
“2:191I mean this one is so out of context it is unbelievable. Con has purposely not included bits of the verse to make his argument seem right, however not so fast.2:190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.2:191- and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out.And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there2:192- But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.2:193- Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecutionIf they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.I mean come on, the proof is in the pudding. It is a war verse. This is a classic example of self defence. Peace was the first option, however remember the Holy War criteria? That a Muslim cannot go to war with the enemy unless they attack first. Clearly the Muslims are not the aggressors, they are not told to cause terror, they are not told to kill or fight first. Only attack if the enemy attacks, that is the rule. “
Like Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan Caravans and genocide of its people?
Or is this the exception to the self-defense rule?
I mean come on; the proof is in the pudding, RIGHT!?!?!?!
Conclusion:
Pro attempts to explain away the violence and brutality committed by Islam through claiming these verses are “cherry-picked." Not that extra detail nullifies the significance of these crimes.
Sources: https://www.islamhadith.com
Round 3
Pro
#5
Ok, quite a bit to unpack and unload.
Pro is inadvertently defending a system of retribution that seeks to punish unmarried men and women for sleeping around. Draw your own conclusions about whether or not this system is acceptable.
It is a crime. You have to understand that the perpetrator has committed a crime and a crime must be dealt with by justice. If there was no justice, then there would be chaos and therefore this punishment is acceptable. And only in rare cases does this punishment actually happen. As I said, 4 witnesses, a fair trial and something of value and something kept in a place that is stolen is seen as a crime that would give this type of punishment.
There are many different translations of this verse, this one saying.:"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
No that is not right. What you are insinuating in that a man has a right to STRIKE a woman. The strike that me and you know very well, means to forcefully hit. Now in the actual translation it says strike gently. Why the use of this oxymoron? The answer is very obvious. In Arabic, the word 'strike' in this context does not mean to forcefully hit and therefore strike is translated to as 'tap'.
Domestic abuse is not tolerated in Islam actually and is a worldwide crime. Funnily enough, in the western world, domestic abuse is actually very prominent. In fact after the Euros 2020, when England lost on pens, there was a 38% increase on domestic abuse by English white men. Actually, this happened not only due to the fact England lost, but also due to the problem of alcohol, something which Islam prohibits because of the intoxication it leads people to. Therefore, Con has no right to talk about this issue of domestic abuse when it is clear that Islam has nothing to do with it, and is a false claim made by him.
I’m going to respond with this.:"‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said: ''The hand of a thief is to be cut off for a quarter of a dinar or more."
I am going to respond with this.
In the same Hadith, the following is what was said.
Allah declared people's properties to be as inviolable as their lives and Honor
a punishment was introduced to repel transgressors
cut off the hand of the thief who steals something that is kept in a safe place
he divine wisdom states that a thief's hand is to be cut for stealing one quarter of a gold dinar or its equivalent so as to protect the wealth of others, enhance security, and promote good gain and investment
The Hadith that Con has provided has no means to escalate to a argument against Islam. It is actually the latter because the cutting off of ones hand is a form of deterrence as demonstrated already. Plus look at the 3rd line, 'who steals something kept in a safe place'. The punishment is not to those who steal an apple or anything, it is for those who want to burgle from someone's house and steal their valuables. The punishment is also aimed to protect the wealth of others and enhance security and doing this, promotes peace.
Like Muhammad’s raids on the Meccan Caravans and genocide of its people?Or is this the exception to the self-defence rule?
I would infer that Con is talking about the raid that led to a peace treaty being made and offered by the Muslims. Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.
Also the second question that Con has given is promoting self defence not as a form of violence. Keep in mind Con has stated this and let's see if he changes in the future rounds.
I mean come on; the proof is in the pudding, RIGHT!?!?!?!
What proof have you given?
Pro attempts to explain away the violence and brutality committed by Islam through claiming these verses are “cherry-picked." Not that extra detail nullifies the significance of these crimes.
Were they not cherry picked or are you denying it? Because clearly they were. All quotes are in act of self defence and as Con mentioned, there is nothing wrong with self defence.
CONCLUSION
Con has not given a reference for the caravan incident. Con has not done himself any justice nor any favours because nothing he has said has changed the outcome that Islam is a beautiful, peaceful religion that commands it's believers and followers to spread justice throughout the land. I conclude that Islam is a peaceful religion and when there is conflict among the Muslims and the enemy, the Muslims can only attack once the enemy has attacked.
References
Con
#6
“It is a crime. You have to understand that the perpetrator has committed a crime and a crime must be dealt with by justice. If there was no justice, then there would be chaos and therefore this punishment is acceptable. And only in rare cases does this punishment actually happen. As I said, 4 witnesses, a fair trial and something of value and something kept in a place that is stolen is seen as a crime that would give this type of punishment.”
Honestly, Pro would have gained more points from this paragraph if he stated it was a mistranslation instead of trying to argue that it is a condonable form of justice. This defense in of itself is a fallacy.
Appeal To The Law Fallacy- When following the law is assumed to be the morally correct thing to do, without justification, or when breaking the law is assumed to be the morally incorrect thing to do, without justification.
Since we are discussing whether Islam is a peaceful religion and Pro acknowledges that this verse is quoted in context, then this only proves my point.
“No that is not right. What you are insinuating in that a man has a right to STRIKE a woman. The strike that me and you know very well, means to forcefully hit. Now in the actual translation it says strike gently. Why the use of this oxymoron? The answer is very obvious. In Arabic, the word 'strike' in this context does not mean to forcefully hit and therefore strike is translated to as 'tap'.Domestic abuse is not tolerated in Islam actually and is a worldwide crime. Funnily enough, in the western world, domestic abuse is actually very prominent. In fact after the Euros 2020, when England lost on pens, there was a 38% increase on domestic abuse by English white men. Actually, this happened not only due to the fact England lost, but also due to the problem of alcohol, something which Islam prohibits because of the intoxication it leads people to. Therefore, Con has no right to talk about this issue of domestic abuse when it is clear that Islam has nothing to do with it, and is a false claim made by him.”
We can discuss the statistics of domestic abuse in England if Pro prefers, but he needs to create a separate thread for it. As his numbers don’t disprove my point about the culture of domestic abuse fostered by Islam.
“Facts and figures about domestic violence in the Muslim community are not as up to date as we would hope.
A study of 22 mosques in New York in 2005 found that
- 96% of the participants perceived the imam as a counselor
- 74% had sought counseling from imams for safety issues. (Abu-Ras and Gheith 2006)”
“I would infer that Con is talking about the raid that led to a peace treaty being made and offered by the Muslims. Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.Also the second question that Con has given is promoting self defence not as a form of violence. Keep in mind Con has stated this and let's see if he changes in the future rounds.”
Nope.
Muhammad might have tried to paint this as self-defense, but the reality couldn’t be any more to the contrary. He instigated them and used violence first.
“At first, the Meccans sought peaceable means in which Muhammad and they could come to terms, trying to avoid any division and hostility between them. Instead of acquiescing, Muhammad tries to bribe the Meccans by promising them rulership over the peoples, both Arabs and non-Arabs alike. Muhammad also threatens them with punishment if they refuse to accept Islam. Note, for instance, the following quotation from al-Tabari:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yazid b. Ziyad- Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Qurazi: They gathered against him, and among them was Abu Jahl b. Hisham, who said, while they were waiting at his door, "Muhammad claims that if you follow him in his religion, you shall be the kings of the Arabs and the non-Arabs, that after your death you shall be brought back to life and your lot shall then be gardens like the gardens of Jordan. He also claims that if you do not do this, you shall meet with slaughter after him, and that after death you shall be brought back to life, and your lot shall then be a fire, in which you shall burn."… (Al-Tabari, pp. 142-143; bold emphasis ours)”
“It was a deliberate maneuver on Muhammad’s part to justify his going to Medina and prepare for war against the Meccans now that he had people who were willing to support his cause. The Meccans, therefore, had a very good reason to be afraid of Muhammad and his companions since it wasn’t for peace that Muhammad fled to Medina, but for war.
It is rather obvious that the reason why Muhammad did not attack the pagans while in Mecca is because he did not have the man-power to fight and prevail. It wasn't until Muhammad knew for certain that Arab tribes from Medina would be willing to help him fight and conquer the Meccans did he then conveniently receive "revelation" that it was okay for him to fight.”
“What proof have you given?”
“Were they not cherry picked or are you denying it? Because clearly they were.”
The statement that the verses were cherry-picked aren’t a shield either way. Despite the claims of self-defense, it is evident that the “prophet” was not as much of a victim as he is the perpetrator.
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Round 4
Pro
#7
Appeal To The Law Fallacy- When following the law is assumed to be the morally correct thing to do, without justification, or when breaking the law is assumed to be the morally incorrect thing to do, without justification.
Follow the law of the land. It is the morally correct thing to do.
“Facts and figures about domestic violence in the Muslim community are not as up to date as we would hope.A study of 22 mosques in New York in 2005 found that
- 96% of the participants perceived the imam as a counselor
- 74% had sought counselling from imams for safety issues. (Abu-Ras and Gheith 2006)”
This is nonsense, I don't get the point here. An Imam being a counsellor has nothing to do with Islam promoting domestic violence. There is a huge issue in domestic violence among countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India etc. But this is to do with culture. Remember, culture and religion are two separate things. Unless Con can find me the statistics about domestic violence because of Islam, his point is void.
Sam Shamoun is a biased source to get from. I understand why you have done that but it is not lawful to do so. Clearly a biased viewpoint satisfies your view on it, so you have found someone who thinks like you as well.
Bare in mind, I stated the following.
Unless Con can find me a reference to where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) raided and killed people for absolutely no reason, that example is nullified due to the agreement of a peace treaty and only attacking in the case of self defence.
The Meccans wanted to kill the Prophet. They either wanted him dead or to go to war. As the Meccans were preparing for war, What the Muslims did was justified as an act of self defence thus Con has not answered the question. I asked for a reliable reference to where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) raided or killed people for absolutely no reason. Any example, any Hadith. By the way, there is none.
References for this bit
1. Sunan Abī Dāwūd 3004, Grade: Sahih
2. Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3734, Grade: Sahih
The statement that the verses were cherry-picked aren’t a shield either way. Despite the claims of self-defence, it is evident that the “prophet” was not as much of a victim as he is the perpetrator.
By cherry picked, I meant out of context, and thank you for admitting that. Despite the claims that the Prophet was a perpetrator, Con has failed to justify why this is the case by giving no reference for it.
Islam is a peaceful religion.
Con has failed to product any evidence of the latter, any evidence of the Prophet attacking people for no reason, any evidence of the Quran telling people to attack others for no reason, any evidence of Islam advocating violence without reason and I can go on.
This round for me has been rushed.
Con
#8
Overview:
- My point of flogging as a punishment for adultery as being a cruel and unusual punishment remains uncontested by Pro.
- I argue that the verses in Islam endorse domestic abuse and show statistics. (Slightly refuted.) Pro mentions that correlation is not causation, but my argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives being misinterpreted has yet to be disproven.
- I argue that Muhammad has acted in offense before and cite a source. Pro’s response is an apparent ad hominem attack.
I believe the verses and example of Muhammad’s actions are sufficient enough on its own to demonstrate that Islam is in-fact, not a peaceful religion but I’m going to explore it a little deeper.
“Sam Shamoun is a biased source to get from. I understand why you have done that but it is not lawful to do so. Clearly a biased viewpoint satisfies your view on it, so you have found someone who thinks like you as well.”
This ad hominem attack from Pro is laced with passive aggression. And keep in mind, this “rebuttal” doesn’t mean my sources are false just because of the claim of ‘bias.’
“The Meccans wanted to kill the Prophet. They either wanted him dead or to go to war. As the Meccans were preparing for war, What the Muslims did was justified as an act of self defence thus Con has not answered the question. I asked for a reliable reference to where the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) raided or killed people for absolutely no reason. Any example, any Hadith. By the way, there is none.”
The Quran justifies this as an act of self-defense. And there is proof and documentation which establishes first-hand that Muhammad was the instigator who used bullying, threats of intimidation, and force to bend them to his will.
This can be found in The History of al-Tabari, a book written by a Muslim historian. There are also examples in the English translation of Muhammad’s biography, Sirat Rasulullah, which became known as “The Life of Muhammad.”
“By cherry picked, I meant out of context, and thank you for admitting that. Despite the claims that the Prophet was a perpetrator, Con has failed to justify why this is the case by giving no reference for it.Islam is a peaceful religion.Con has failed to product any evidence of the latter, any evidence of the Prophet attacking people for no reason, any evidence of the Quran telling people to attack others for no reason, any evidence of Islam advocating violence without reason and I can go on.”
There was no admission of cherry-picking if you read back to my response from the previous round and I did prove that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense. Extend.
Real Life Accounts:
You can make the argument that these people were taken the Quran "out of context," but this doesn't deny the very sociopathic and tyrannical influence Islam holds over its members.
l. Indonesia
On January 10, 2000, a Christian village was raided by Muslim extremists who sought to convert their new recruits by means of intimidation and force. They set fire to the houses, forcing the villagers on the retreat and to flee into the jungle in order to escape.
"Instead, Adel froze, paralyzed by the crackling sounds of fire now drifting up the hillside as smoke ascended into the darkening sky. They have set the entire village ablaze. Every house would be consumed, she knew, including her own."
ll. Afghanistan
On March 19, 2015, a Muslim religious teacher by the name of Farkhunda Malikzada was reportedly accused of burning the Quran one day when a tragic argument took a turn for the worse.
She was attacked and brutalized by a mob that struggled against the police in their fight. The mob then burned her body, and evidence was released proving that the allegation made against her was in-fact, false.
The Concept of Eternal Punishment:
Each punishment varies judging by the actions of one previous to death. But of all the consequences seem to be very brutal. The technical term for hell in Islam being “Jahannam,”
- Eternity in blazing fire[11]
- Hung by the breasts[12]
- Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
- Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
- Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
- Beat with maces of iron[15]
- Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
- Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
- Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
- Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
- Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
- Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
- Intestines will come out[27]
- Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
Conclusion:
I have successfully maintained my position that Islam is not in-fact a peaceful religion, by illustrating the barbarism of its people and the inhumane methods of punishment. The only rebuttal I have seen from Pro would be about the issue of domestic violence, but he concedes on my point about flogging and the method of cutting off a person's arm as punishment. His only remedy to these two points is the difficulties in a trial.
He claims that Muslims can only act in self-defense but fails to disprove my point about Muhammad being a murderer who used violence first. His response is a blatant ad hominem attack.
Vote CON.
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Round 5
Pro
#9
Ok, so this will be my final argument,
I think I have successfully made the case already.
War is justifiable by self defence, Con has not refuted this therefore in every instance of self defence, going to war is fine. I am making the claim right now that you won't find a single verse in the Quran that allows Muslims to go to war without reason. I will back it up and double down and also make the claim that you won't find a single piece of evidence that the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attacked an innocent person for no reason. There is always a reason, always. Even if you go to the WikiIslam website, you will find a reason for every single one of those attacks. And on the very rare scenario that you don't, the Hadith is fabricated. The Prophet endured pain through his life and still never fought back until necessary.
Even if you talk about the caravans and the poetry and all the other attacks that the Muslims did, you won't find a single piece of evidence that suggests they were not attacked first.
- My point of flogging as a punishment for adultery as being a cruel and unusual punishment remains uncontested by Pro.
The point of flogging is it is a deterrence. God doesn't want people to get hurt therefore he set this punishment, so people do not commit the crime and stay away from this. It is not an unusual punishment, it has a purpose.
- I argue that the verses in Islam endorse domestic abuse and show statistics. (Slightly refuted.) Pro mentions that correlation is not causation, but my argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives being misinterpreted has yet to be disproven.
You have not showed how Islam endorses domestic abuse, only state why Muslims abuse their wife. Is it really to do with Islam or is it to do with cultural reasons in society? There has not been a single verse that Con has given except for Surah Nisa: 4:3 which has already been refuted. Your argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives has been misinterpreted. I will repeat again, Men are not allowed to hurt their wives, not allowed to touch their wives face in an act of violence and not allowed to leave a mark or bruise and you still say that Islam endorses hitting women? This is not right and is a lie.
- I argue that Muhammad has acted in offense before and cite a source. Pro’s response is an apparent ad hominem attack.
Let's talk about this properly.
This is the Wikipedia page for the conflict with the Muslims and the Meccans. Sam Shamoun does not know what he is talking about. Tell me where Muhammed (PBUH) acted violent first.
This was a conflict. People were going to attack people. Who started this conflict, because it was not the Muslims. In fact the Muslims gave a peace treaty and the pagan Meccans did not adhere to it. Therefore, it was an act of self defence whatever the Muslims did. This further raises the point to find me a verse in the Quran which advocates violence without reason. And voters, if Con gives a verse, look at it yourselves, go 5 ayahs up and 5 ayahs down. Read the full context.
And there is proof and documentation which establishes first-hand that Muhammad was the instigator who used bullying, threats of intimidation, and force to bend them to his will.
Give me the proof. As you clearly said, within that book there is proof, so give the proof. Page number and reference.
By the way, side note,
Bullying is haram in Islam.
Threats of intimidation is also haram without reason
Forcing something is also haram, it actually states '2:256- There is no compulsion in religion'. Muslims are not allowed to force people to join the religion and this makes Con's claim about this earlier on untrue. Forcing someone to join Islam is haram.
There was no admission of cherry-picking if you read back to my response from the previous round and I did prove that Muhammad was not acting in self-defence. Extend.
No you haven't. Unless you give me the part where Muhammed (PBUH) attacked the Meccans first without reason or provocation, your point is still void. The Sam Shamoun scandalous piece you have given, is not accurate. I have given the Wikipedia page, even that is more accurate. And we all know about Wikipedia.
On January 10, 2000, a Christian village was raided by Muslim extremists who sought to convert their new recruits by means of intimidation and force. They set fire to the houses, forcing the villagers on the retreat and to flee into the jungle in order to escape.
2:256- There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.
Therefore, they were not following the religion of Islam.
On March 19, 2015, a Muslim religious teacher by the name of Farkhunda Malikzada was reportedly accused of burning the Quran one day when a tragic argument took a turn for the worse.She was attacked and brutalized by a mob that struggled against the police in their fight. The mob then burned her body, and evidence was released proving that the allegation made against her was in-fact, false.
If the allegation was false, what is your point? Where does Islam teach that you should kill an innocent person? Again, Muslims only are allowed to act in self defence and even if they thought that they were, they were wrong. So if what you are saying is true, I condemn those Muslims as well as the Christian village ones and I am sure the rest of the Ummah does too. Therefore your point is void, Islam does not teach this once again.
The Concept of Eternal Punishment:Each punishment varies judging by the actions of one previous to death. But of all the consequences seem to be very brutal. The technical term for hell in Islam being “Jahannam,”
Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist. This is a Muslim's belief. The concept of hell eternally, is only for those who are disbelievers. If you are Muslim, you will not go to hell for eternity. At some point, even the worst of Muslims will go to hell for a long time and then maybe once their punishment is done, they can go to heaven. This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person.
but he concedes on my point about flogging and the method of cutting off a person's arm as punishment. His only remedy to these two points is the difficulties in a trial.
These two things are punishment for deterrence.
And even if you commit adultery or stealing, shall I tell you the criteria again?
Adultery
-Punishment is only applied if you are caught having sex outside of marriage in the Public with 4 male witnesses testifying that you are guilty. This is near enough impossible. Only an ignorant person would have sex in public where there are witnesses. Even the UK has public indecency laws, the punishment is only a form of deterrence. Con has not debunked this at all, but just himself further down a hole.
Stealing
-Punishment only applies if one steals from a place that there are lots of valuables and from a place which keeps things safe such as a house. And what is the punishment for burglary in the UK? Up to 6 years in prison. This is a form of punishment. Sharia Law also has a form of punishment known as deterrence.
He claims that Muslims can only act in self-defence but fails to disprove my point about Muhammad being a murderer who used violence first. His response is a blatant ad hominem attack.
First of all, even if Muhammad (PBUH) did act first and never used self defence- which he didn't- but lets say he did. How does that disprove the original question that Islam is peaceful religion. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the religion advocating what individuals do, know the difference please. And even so, Muhammad never so stop lying. You haven't even given an accurate source.
Conclusion
I have a few simple, easy points.
-Islam teaches that Muslims can only act in self defence to go to war or to attack someone else. To disprove this, you need to refer to the scripture and add context as well. If Con fails to do so, he concedes this point.
-Islam teaches to not hurt women, not touch them with a violent intent nor leave a mark or bruise. If Con fails to disprove this, he concedes this point.
-The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) has never attacked someone first without a reason. With the Meccan conflict, the Meccans attacked first and started the conflict and never stuck to the peace treaty so this example is void. If Con fails to prove the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) failed to keep his head and attacked first using a reliable source, he concedes the point.
- Eternal punishment is something that only Muslims believe to non believers. If Con doesn't believe in the Muslim reality of hell, then he concedes this point.
-I never stated that Islam is a pacifist religion, only a peaceful one where Muslims can only act in self defence if the enemy attacks you. If Con disagrees with this point, he must explain why and if he can't, he concedes the point.
Vote Pro
Con
#10
Conclusion:
- Established that flogging is a brutal punishment which has not been properly refuted by Pro, so he tries to double down.
- Proven that domestic abuse occurs in Islam with statistics and that the Quran verse permits men to put their hands on their wives.
- Demonstrated that Muhammad instigated war against the Meccans so he could force his religion on them, and he lied about having acted in self-defense to justify his cruelty.
- Showed real life accounts about how Muslims harassed Christian villagers by burning their houses down to get them to convert and how they brutalized a woman and set her body on fire.
- Made the point that their version of Hell is just blatant fear-mongering.
So I have demonstrated with Quran verses, statistical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and even historical evidence that Islam was not founded in peace or the love for another man, and when you look further, it is a cult of genocide and barbarism.
Pro accuses me of cherry-picking several times and labels me as biased when confronted with overwhelming sources to back up my points.
Vote CON.
Rebuttals:
The point of flogging is it is a deterrence. God doesn't want people to get hurt therefore he set this punishment, so people do not commit the crime and stay away from this. It is not an unusual punishment, it has a purpose.-Punishment is only applied if you are caught having sex outside of marriage in the Public with 4 male witnesses testifying that you are guilty. This is near enough impossible. Only an ignorant person would have sex in public where there are witnesses. Even the UK has public indecency laws, the punishment is only a form of deterrence. Con has not debunked this at all, but just himself further down a hole.
Public indecency exists in its own category. Pro is trying to double down on his defense of this point because he failed to address it the first time.
Appeal To Extremes- Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes.
Two people do not have to be sleeping together in public to be caught. They could be in their own or someone else's house at a party but in one of the bedrooms and it is entirely possible for one of the neighbors to walk in, accompanied by three other people.
Stop acting like this punishment can only be invoked under only specific circumstances. A husband can even falsely accuse his own wife.
"If a complete sentence was administered at once, the accused could potentially die."
You have not showed how Islam endorses domestic abuse, only state why Muslims abuse their wife. Is it really to do with Islam or is it to do with cultural reasons in society? There has not been a single verse that Con has given except for Surah Nisa: 4:3 which has already been refuted. Your argument about the specific verse of men hitting their wives has been misinterpreted. I will repeat again, Men are not allowed to hurt their wives, not allowed to touch their wives face in an act of violence and not allowed to leave a mark or bruise and you still say that Islam endorses hitting women? This is not right and is a lie.
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.
But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
The fact that many men would misinterpret this quote to mean violence means that the fault lies with the root. This quote leaves the responsibility of judgment to the husband to decide whether or not his wife is acting irresponsibly, and for a man that gets temperamental, he can invoke this quote to justify his violence.Give me the proof. As you clearly said, within that book there is proof, so give the proof. Page number and reference.By the way, side note,Bullying is haram in Islam.Threats of intimidation is also haram without reasonForcing something is also haram, it actually states '2:256- There is no compulsion in religion'. Muslims are not allowed to force people to join the religion and this makes Con's claim about this earlier on untrue. Forcing someone to join Islam is haram.
"In regard to Muhammad’s early preaching in Mecca, Al-Tabari notes:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq: The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway, as far as I had heard, UNTIL he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. The latter were few in number and practiced their faith in secret. His uncle Abu Talib was friendly to him, however, and protected him and shielded him from them. The Messenger of God continued to do God’s work and to proclaim his message, undeterred by anything. When Quraysh saw that he would not give them any satisfaction, they objected to his departing from their ways and denouncing their gods, and seeing that Abu Talib protected him, shielded him from harm, and would not hand him over to them, a number of the nobles of Quraysh, consisting of such men as ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Shaybah b. Rabi‘ah, Abu al-Bakhtari b. Hisham, al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-‘As b. Wa’il and Nubayh and Munabbih, the sons of al-Hajjaj, went to Abu Talib and said, "Abu Talib, your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are just as opposed to him as we are, and we will deal with him for you." Abu Talib gave them a mild answer and declined courteously, and they left him. The Messenger of God continued as before, proclaiming the faith of God and summoning people to it."
Sam Shamoun is a credible source. He uses historical quotes and documentation to supplement his evidence.
If the allegation was false, what is your point? Where does Islam teach that you should kill an innocent person? Again, Muslims only are allowed to act in self defence and even if they thought that they were, they were wrong. So if what you are saying is true, I condemn those Muslims as well as the Christian village ones and I am sure the rest of the Ummah does too. Therefore your point is void, Islam does not teach this once again.
That once again, Islam has led to a cult-like mentality for which the influence convinces people to commit genocide in an act of preserving their religion.
“But those who are faithless and deny Our signs, they shall be the inmates of the Fire and they shall remain in it forever” (Q 2:39)."
"[2:161] Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all."
"[3:12] Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-place."
Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist. This is a Muslim's belief. The concept of hell eternally, is only for those who are disbelievers. If you are Muslim, you will not go to hell for eternity. At some point, even the worst of Muslims will go to hell for a long time and then maybe once their punishment is done, they can go to heaven. This punishment is justified, you have your chance in this world to follow Islam, and it is down to a person's free will to do so if they choose. And if they don't, it is down to the same person.
What kind of counter-argument is this?
I have no right to talk about Hell because I am not Muslim? Hopefully, you can see my other reasons for bringing this up. That the concept of Hell is a fear-mongering tactic to keep its cult members submissive by reinforcing the fear of cruel punishments.
- Eternity in blazing fire[11]
- Hung by the breasts[12]
- Bound in yokes[13] and chains[10]
- Garments of liquid pitch[14] and fire[15]
- Faces covered in fire[14] and lips burnt off[16]
- Beat with maces of iron[15]
- Fed painful, noxious, choking foods which will leave them hungry and boil their insides[13][17][18][19]
- Boiling water[20] poured over one's head and used to scald the skin and internal organs[15]
- Extremely hot, and extremely cold, filthy fluids of pus and blood[21]
- Hot stones placed on the nipple that will burn through to the shoulder bone[22]
- Dragged by the face through boiling water and fire[23][24]
- Burning embers beneath the arches of the feet[25] or shoes of fire[26] that will cause one's brain to boil.
- Intestines will come out[27]
- Exchangeable skins so that people can be roasted over and over again[28]
First of all, even if Muhammad (PBUH) did act first and never used self defence- which he didn't- but lets say he did. How does that disprove the original question that Islam is peaceful religion. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about the religion advocating what individuals do, know the difference please. And even so, Muhammad never so stop lying. You haven't even given an accurate source.
If the Founder of a religion you are arguing is peaceful, has engaged in violence and brutality then it recontextualizes everything about the belief system and invalidates 100% of what you are saying. It is clearly evident that Islam does not promote peace whatsoever and I have proven it.
I will extend my quote from earlier where the evidence of Muhammad's crimes can be carefully laid out.
"This can be found in The History of al-Tabari, a book written by a Muslim historian. There are also examples in the English translation of Muhammad’s biography, Sirat Rasulullah, which became known as “The Life of Muhammad.”
Sources: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's arguments regarding Muslim law and scripture are very compelling, advocating against war when possible and only punishing what are viewed as the most grievous crimes such as adultery and murder is very peaceful as far as civilizations go. Con's criticisms on the punishments regarding adultery are not particularly strong, as they only point to a single case that is applied as a retroactive punishment and is subject to some degree to adjudication.
However, the argument isn't about the society, it is about the underlying religion. Con has a knockdown argument in the form of eternal punishment for sinful and nonbelievers. Pro tries to dismiss this on the grounds that Con does not believe in the religion of Islam. This is an obviously nonsensical argument, as the people supporting this form of eternal punishment are the ones that DO believe in it.
You too!
I said it is not to do with Islam. It is a secular attack. Where is the proof it is because Islam advocates it?
Great discussion, I look forward to having it again with you in the future.
I just pointed out that interview thing and with a proof... And who the heck is spreading rumours about killings in India
Have you ever been here?
If no...... Just don't say anything about my country.
Attention, voters.
When you get to my final argument in round 5, I want to clarify that this paragraph is my own words despite the error of being highlighted in gray block.:
“The fact that many men would misinterpret this quote to mean violence means that the fault lies with the root. This quote leaves the responsibility of judgment to the husband to decide whether or not his wife is acting irresponsibly, and for a man that gets temperamental, he can invoke this quote to justify his violence.”
I am ashamed to inform you that Hindu's are killing and torturing Muslims in India.
This has nothing to do with a religion advocating terrorism. This is a secular attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqMRUJYYMf0
I am ashamed to inform you guys that Indian media took an interview of a terrorist of Kashmir valley(actively involved in genocide of kashmiri hindus in valley), namely Bitta Karate.
He literally accepted that he has killed about 20 people and can even kill his mother or brother if ordered to.
India is changing and will take POK back.
Jai Hindi
How peaceful is that.
(this point is just a suggestion)
I mean the ignorance of yourself is not a good virtue.
I have answered Surah 9:5 already
And also 9:73
I have stated that whenever Muslims are commanded to go to war, there is always a case of self defence. A Muslim is only allowed to go to war if the enemy attacks first. In fact, you won't find a single war verse in the Quran that states to go to war and kill innocent people. Every single war verse is also accompanied by a case of self defence. For example, Surah 9:5 talks about if the enemy violates the peace treaty and they attack you.
This is basic knowledge.
Surah 9:5
"But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them,1 capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Surah 9:73
"O PROPHET! Strive hard against the deniers of the truth and the hypocrites, and be adamant with them. And [if they do not repent,] their goal shall be hell -and how vile a journey's end! "
At-Tauba (The Repentance) 9:39
"If you do not go forth to war [in God's cause], He will chastise you with grievous chastisement, and will place another people in your stead - whereas you shall in no wise harm Him: for, God has the power to will anything. "
Yes Islam is a religion of peace. You say otherwise and they kill you.
I will follow this debate and vote when I get voting privileges.
You should create a debate on if Islam endorsees pedophilia.
.
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR QUOTE OF REMOVING ONE OF YOUR FEET FROM YOUR MOUTH, TO INSERT THE OTHER: "He lacks the brain cells to hold a discussion and doesn’t have the courage to debate either of us."
Firstly, what part of this comment post to you didn't you understand, whiny little boy that makes grade-school statements?: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48891
Secondly, because you didn't understand the content of my post above, then you obviously didn't take advantage of bringing your reading comprehension to a higher 2nd grade level as I proposed you to do in this link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4029/comment-links/48861
.
NEXT PSEUDO-DEBATER LIKE "SIR.LANCELOT" THAT CAN'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE READING, BUT FAILS TO TAKE CLASSES TO ENHANCE HIS READING SKILLS TO AT LEAST A 2ND GRADE LEVEL, WILL BE ... ?
.
.
rayhan16 and the equally dumbfounded of debate, Sir.Lancelot,
You two kids are like 2 peas in a pod, whereas you are both trying in vain to be worthy in this ADULT Religion forum! But, as shown in the comment section alone, you two fall flat on your Satanic asses when I question you debate fools! LOL
At your expense, Jesus and I will continue to see how the both of you do on rounds 4 and 5 where you will obviously give the membership more laughter in your ineptness upon the topic, and in not getting to the point of the topic faster, but slow working it in your tiresome rhetoric. Sad indeed, but what did we expect from you two kids? :)
.
NEXT WANNABE DEBATERS LIKE "SIR.LANCELOT" AND THE LYING MUSLIM "RAYHAN16," WILL BE ... ?
.
.
rayhan16,
Addressing your continued Qur’an bible stupidity relative to my comment #26:
.
In chronological order of Qur'an 9:33
(5:31) Thereupon Allah sent forth a raven who began to scratch the earth to show him how he might cover the corpse of his brother. So seeing he cried: 'Woe unto me! Was I unable even to be like this raven and find a way to cover the corpse of my brother? Then he became full of remorse at his doing
(5:32) Therefore We ordained for the Children of Israel that he who slays a soul unless it be (in punishment) for murder or for spreading mischief on earth shall be as if he had slain all mankind; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And indeed again and again did Our Messengers come to them with clear directives; yet many of them continued to commit excesses on earth.
[5:33] Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.
HEADS UP LIAR! As shown above, there was NO provoking of others or attacking of Muslims like you erroneously said in your comment #28, understood Muslim LIAR?
.
It is being profoundly seen that you think the membership is as dumbfounded as YOU are of your unpeaceful Muslim religion, whereas, we are NOT at your embarrassing expense! ... Get it Muslim Qur'an fool?
.
NEXT DUMBFOUNDED MUSLIM LIKE "RAYHAN16," THAT THINKS THEIR RELIGION IS PEACEFUL, WHICH IS SHOWN TO BE A LIE, WILL BE … ?
.
.
rayhan16,
Addressing your continued Qur’an bible stupidity relative to my comment #26:
.
In chronological order of Qur'an 9:30
[9:28] Believers, those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity are unclean. So, after the expiry of this year, let them not even go near the Sacred Mosque. And should you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He wills. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
[9:29] Those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day - even though they were given the scriptures, and who do not hold as unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, and who do not follow the true religion - fight against them until they pay tribute out of their hand and are utterly subdued.28
[9:30] “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”
HEADS UP LIAR! As shown above, there was NO provoking of others or attacking of Muslims like you erroneously said in your comment #28, understood Muslim LIAR?
.
.
rayhan16,
Addressing your continued Qur’an bible stupidity relative to my comment #26:
In chronological order of Qur'an 9:5
[9:3] This is a public proclamation by Allah and His Messenger to all people on the day of the Great Pilgrimage:4 "Allah is free from all obligation to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity; and so is His Messenger. If you repent, it shall be for your own good; but if you turn away, then know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah. So give glad tidings of a painful chastisement to those who disbelieve.
[9:4] In exception to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity are those with whom you have made treaties and who have not violated their treaties nor have backed up anyone against you. Fulfil your treaties with them till the end of their term. Surely Allah loves the pious.”
[9:5] "When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them”
HEADS UP LIAR! As shown above, there was NO provoking of others or attacking of Muslims like you erroneously said in your comment #28, understood Muslim LIAR?
.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR LYING QUOTE TO MY COMMENT #26 REGARDING THE 4 QUR'AN PASSAGES IN QUESTION; ''when they attack you"
Wrong LYING Muslim Qur'an fool! ... You are as dumbfounded as the little whiney boy Sir. Lancelot in his lacking debating skills!
Each and every one of the said passages in my comment #26 were NOT provoked by anyone or when the Muslims were attacked, LIAR!
In chronological order proving this FACT above is Qur'an 9:123;
[9:121] Likewise, each amount they spend, be it small or large, and each journey they undertake, shall be recorded in their favour so that Allah may bestow upon them reward for their good deeds.
[9:122] It was not necessary for the believers to go forth all together (to receive religious instruction), but why did not a party of them go forth that they may grow in religious understanding, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may avoid (erroneous attitudes)?
[9:123] Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.
.
HEADS UP LIAR! As shown above, there was NO provoking of others or attacking of Muslims like you erroneously said in your comment #28, understood Muslim LIAR? Now wipe the egg off of your face!
.
Fair enough.
Yes I know, but it's funny playing with him
He lacks the brain cells to hold a discussion and doesn’t have the courage to debate either of us.
You’re better off ignoring this clown.
1. when they attack you
2. when they attack you
3. when they attack you
4. when they attack you
In fact, every verse that you quoted, is all in self defence, but you never included that part, did you?
XD
.
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR QUOTE IN OBVIOUSLY ADMITTING THAT YOU ARE A WHINEY LITTLE BOY DEBATER: "Predicable"
Yes! It was "PREDICABLE" for you to bring forth more "little boy" statements in a debate with you, therefore you understood that it was a waste of my time to delve through even more of your child-like antics in a debate, equal to the ones shown below AGAIN, praise! 2+2=4.
1. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Try harder. (comment #19)
2. BrotherD.Thomas is so intelligent that his IQ stats maxed out and went back to zero. (comment #17)
3. Why do you talk like you head-butt walls in your sparetime? (comment #14)
4. Give yourself a break from the tiring mental aerobics. (comment #12)
5. You’re typing too much. (comment #9)
6. The vibes I’m sensing are, “WAAAAAAAAHHH IM TRIGGERED” (comment #7)
7. Not a single person can currently decipher what it is you are rambling about. (comment #6)
.
NEXT DUMBFOUNDED LITTLE BOY DEBATER LIKE "SIR.LANCELOT" THAT ADMITS THAT HE IS NOT WORTHY DEBATING BECAUSE OF HIS GRADE-SCHOOL ANTICS, WILL BE ... ?
.
.
rayhan16,
I have many instances that explicitly show your hell bound Muslim faith is NOT peaceful, where a few of many are shown below:
1. "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood" (Qur’an9:123)
2. "When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them" (Qur’an 9:5) (Infidels equal Jews, Christians, and any other religion that don’t believe in Allah)
3. "The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them." (Qur’an 9:30)
4. "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam." (Qur’an 5:33)
rayhan16, what RUNNING SHOES are you going to wear this time as you once again runaway from the above Qur'an passages where the Muslim faith was invented by a pedophile name Muhammed that had a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL CHILD NAMED AISHA to sexually play with?
.
Predictable.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR QUOTE: "Yes, I acknowledge you have a very powerful way with words, maybe save it for a debate. Me and you?"
As with the whiney "little boy" mentality of Sir. Lancelot, I am supposed to take my valuable time and debate YOU as well, surely you jest when you specifically stated the following:
YOUR HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE IN COMMENT #16: "You are either new to this site or think you are the main character. Grow up, no one gives a toss what you say, stop wasting your own time typing all of that crap and do something productive, go on a walk, talk to your parents etc. Weirdo."
Since as you stated above, I am to grow up, and you say no one gives a toss in what I say, and I am to stop wasting my time typing stuff that makes you the Muslim religious fool, and do something productive, etc., etc., etc,. and subsequent to what you said to me in your aforementioned comments shown herewith, THEN YOU WANT ME TO DEBATE YOU?! ROFLOL! Can you spell your "C-O-N-T-R-A-D-I-C-T-I-O-N ... I-N ... T-E-R-M-S?" Sure you can. What a dolt you are. :(
.
NO, I don't have the time in a debate setting, where you have to do this, you have to do that, the rounds, rating mode, voting, the timing of days, hours and minutes, yada, yada, yada, where I get to the point of the topic in question FAST in a forum setting, understood? Yes? Maybe?
You have two rounds left, where Jesus and I will comment upon at your Hell bound Muslim expense, get it?
.
NEXT DUMBFOUNDED MUSLIM OF THE FAITH LIKE "RAYHAN16" THAT IS A HYPOCRITE TO WHAT HE SAID EARLIER TO ME AS SHOWN ABOVE, WILL BE ... ?
.
Yes, I acknowledge you have a very powerful way with words, maybe save it for a debate. Me and you?
.
Sir.Lancelot,
What didn't you understand when I told YOU the following in my comment #18 quoted herewith: "Yep, sooner or later the inept of debating like YOU, always has to digress to a grade-school setting as you have done with your "little boy" quote above, it never fails!"
.
Therefore, surely you jest in that I am supposed to debate you when you have "little boy" grade-school attributes and tactics that I would have to wade through to decipher your lack of debating skills in getting to the point of the topic at hand, like are shown below:
.
The juvenile Sir Lancelot's kiddie statements to me in the comment thread:
1. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Try harder. (comment #19)
2. BrotherD.Thomas is so intelligent that his IQ stats maxed out and went back to zero. (comment #17)
3. Why do you talk like you head-butt walls in your sparetime? (comment #14)
4. Give yourself a break from the tiring mental aerobics. (comment #12)
5. You’re typing too much. (comment #9)
6. The vibes I’m sensing are, “WAAAAAAAAHHH IM TRIGGERED” (comment #7)
7. Not a single person can currently decipher what it is you are rambling about. (comment #6)
Look at your outright "little boy" feeble responses to me ABOVE in making you the debate fool of this forum, and you want me to waste my time in debating you when your mental state is that of a whiny little child? NOT! ROFLOL!!! I only "discuss" religion with adults, and YOU as explicitly shown, are NOT an adult in any way whatsoever because of your 7 inept comments above! Get it little boy debater? Huh?
.
NEXT MEMBER OF DEBATEART THAT HAS A CHILD-LIKE MENTALITY LIKE "SIR LANCELOT," AND SHOWS THIS IN THEIR 7 RESPONSES ABOVE, THAT WANTS TO WASTE THE TIME OF BROTHER D. THOMAS IN A DEBATE, WILL BE ... ? LOL!
.
Let’s debate. You and me.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4038-the-bible-has-proven-the-existence-of-god
Confirm you aren’t scared by accepting my challenge.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR QUOTE OF AGREEING WITH ME THAT YOUR DESPICABLE RELIGION OF ISLAM IS NOT PEACEFUL: "Thank you, appreciate it."
I am assuming that you are referencing my comment #2 and #4 where you were made the LYING Muslim Fool! Good boy, you are coming to terms with actual FACTS about your faith as I have shown you AND with back-up material to prove it from Muslim writings!
As the membership can see, you are still SCARED out of your wits to address this passage in your Qur'an: "Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax" (Qur’an 9:29) .......... Remember, Allah is watching YOU run away from defending the faith: Tafsir of Chapter 049 Verse 18: "Verily, Allah knows the hidden things of the heavens and earth and ALLAH SEES WHATEVER YOU DO."
.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Try harder.
.
YOUR QUOTE THAT SHOWS YOU ARE AT RECESS AT A GRADE-SCHOOL: "Why do you talk like you head-butt walls in your sparetime?"
Yep, sooner or later the inept of debating like YOU, always has to digress to a grade-school setting as you have done with your "little boy" quote above, it never fails!
Since you are now resorting to grade-school tactics, I will not bother you anymore to save you from further embarrassment in front of the membership, where again, you can thank me later, okay?
Now, for your sake, you need to have the last word, therefore BEGIN:
.
NEXT PSEUDO DEBATER LIKE SIR.LANCELOT WHOSE DEBATE STATEMENTS ARE LAUGHABLE AND TOO LONG TO GET TO THE POINT, WILL BE ... ?
BrotherD.Thomas is so intelligent that his IQ stats maxed out and went back to zero.
You are either new to this site or think you are the main character. Grow up, no one gives a toss what you say, stop wasting your own time typing all of that crap and do something productive, go on a walk, talk to your parents etc.
Weirdo.
.
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR QUOTE ONCE AGAIN IN NOT STICKING TO THE TOPIC: "Give yourself a break from the tiring mental aerobics. Analyzing debates and writing coherently aren’t your strong points."
First thing, why would I even think of "analyzing" your feeble debate's refutations? You were kidding, correct? LOL!
What I have brought forth in a few statements in the comment section, is irrelative to your rounds of debate to begin with, and far surpasses your fragile statements to the RUNAWAY pseudo Muslim rayfan16! Where are you getting your material of debate on the topic in question, from a Cracker Jack's Box, huh? LOL!
Furthermore, as you can see, the Qur'an inept "rayfan16" would NEVER bring forth what I have in my comments because they would derail his presupposition of Islam not being a peaceful religion, get it? Maybe?
.
Heads up, you only have 2 rounds left to "try" and make your position believable with FACTS, therefore, get a good nights sleep so as not to make yourself the fool in this debate, okay? You're welcome!
Jesus H. Christ, kids like YOU have so much to learn in presenting your debates, and the tactics thereof. Sad indeed. :(
.
Why do you talk like you head-butt walls in your sparetime?
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR EMBARRASSING ADMITTANCE THAT YOU CAN'T "DECIPHER" THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: "Not a single person can currently decipher what it is you are rambling about."
Barring your overrun statements in your debate rounds that are way too long, and not getting to the point, and your vacant biography because you are obviously to scared to put the truth within it about your modus operandi, then in you not being able to "decipher" my statements, then you are blatantly in need of an online reading comprehension class!
For your convenance, here are a few "reading comprehension" classes for you to look into, okay? You can thank me later. Good luck!
https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkJjz6Pau_AIVXhOtBh2UgAhwEAAYAyAAEgJ17PD_BwE
https://www.udemy.com/topic/reading-comprehension/
https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool-curriculum/reading-comprehension.html
.
Give yourself a break from the tiring mental aerobics.
Analyzing debates and writing coherently aren’t your strong points.
Thank you, appreciate it.
.
Sir.Lancelot,
YOUR QUOTE: "You’re typing too much. Trolling isn’t supposed to require this much effort."
Conversely, then you are typing too much in your rounds of debate, where obviously you're not at the stage yet to deduce your refutations in a more pleasing way to get to the point first and foremost in your debate. We look forward to you accomplishing this feat in your future debates.
Since when is it trolling to correct a dumbfounded Muslim about his own faith, especially since rayhan16 embarrassingly runs away from it as shown? You're funny. :)
.
You’re typing too much.
Trolling isn’t supposed to require this much effort.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR PITIFUL QUOTE IN ONCE AGAIN RUNNING AWAY FROM YOUR ISLAMIC FAITH: "Writing in capital letters does not help your cause. If you really want to comment, challenge me for a debate. If not, good day."
The capital letters are shown for my initial statement, understood? Now, whats your next EXCUSE to run away from your faith in embarrassment? Will it be the following:
"WAIT, you cannot quote scripture from the Qur'an on Wednesday that makes me look like a fool and if you are wearing pants, and it is past 9am in the morning." LOL!
.
Why should I take the time in debating you and easily burying your weak refutations, when you are showing the membership that you are RUNNING AWAY from discussion in the first place from my comments to you! In this situation, I would be wasting my time! Get it Muslim RUNAWAY?!
.
NEXT PSEUDO MUSLIM LIKE RAYHAN16 THAT HAS TO USE CHILD LIKE EXCUSES TO RUN FROM DISCUSSION REGARDING HIS PRIMITIVE MUSLIM FAITH, WILL BE ... ?
.
The vibes I’m sensing are,
“WAAAAAAAAHHH IM TRIGGERED”
“YOU BELIEVE IN ISLAM REEEEEEEEE”
Not a single person can currently decipher what it is you are rambling about.
Writing in capital letters does not help your cause. If you really want to comment, challenge me for a debate. If not, good day.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM YOUR DISGUSTING ISLAMIC BELIEF SYSTEM: "Realistically, I don't need to read that, so you have wasted your time in writing."
There is absolutely no time wasted in showing how your despicable belief system is sickening in the 21st century, understood? Therefore, when you tersely ran away from my Islamic embarrassing facts, you went against your Allah in the Qur'an when his inspired words stated that YOU ARE TO DEFEND the faith:
"Then We revealed the Book to you (O Muhammad!) with Truth, confirming whatever of the Book was revealed before, and protecting and guarding over it." (Qur'an 5:48)
Or, are you running away from the discussion because your Allah god says to do so in the first place? LOL!!!
"The Prophet (pbuh) said: I guarantee a house in Paradise for one who leaves arguments even if he is right." (Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 4800, Book 43, Hadith 28 In-book reference:)
.
NEXT MUSLIM LIKE "RAYHAN16" THAT HAS ALREADY LOST THIS DEBATE BECAUSE HE IS TO WEAK TO EVEN TRY TO DEFEND THE MUSLIM DISTURBING FACTS THAT I PRESENTED TO HIM IN MY COMMENT #2 RELATIVE TO ISLAM IS NOT A PEACEFUL RELIGION, WILL BE ... ?
.
Realistically, I don't need to read that, so you have wasted your time in writing.
.
rayhan16,
"Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax" (Qur’an 9:29)
YES! Now before you comically turn yourself into a pretzel in spinning yourself into contortions with Islamic apologetics, and go through your many different "translations" of the verse shown above, where what is says literally, is not really what it says, the barbaric Islamic religion seemingly will be peaceful when your pagan belief KILLS all Christians and Jews if they don't convert to Islam!
The sickening part of your Islamic belief is it was founded upon by the PEDOPHILE named Muhammed in keeping a 6 year old girl named Aisha in his possession for "play," and eventually marrying her when she was 9 years old! Can you spell "P-E-D-O-P-H-I-L-E M-U-H-A-M-M-E-D," sure you can! (Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha)
.
YOUR INSIDIOUS QUOTE: "I don't understand Con's need to include this quote in because if a person commits a crime, a punishment is there for him."
Oh, oh, then in these passages below there was no crimes met for punishment yet to the Hell bound muslim, therefore the Muslim is to do the following, INCLUDING YOU, and if you don't slay the pagans, aka, Christians and Jews, then Allah will punish YOU! Get it Muslim fool?:
"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." (Surah 9:5)
"If you do not fight, Allah will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
.
Rayhan16, as if your primitive Islamic religion being shown NOT to be peaceful throughout history, and in addition, have you ever had to mutilate a young girl of her clitoris because it is ungodly for her to have pleasure in sex acts? https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHVIFK
To prevent you from further embarrassment towards your Islamic religion, a simple yes or no will suffice.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation
.
RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU ARE TOTALLY INEPT IN WANTING TO BE A HELL BOUND MUSLIM WITH ITS TRUE HORRIFIC FACTS, NOT!
.
As someone whose had Muslims try to murder me because I was saving lives, I doubt the soundness of the resolution.
That said, a strong valid argument can still be constructed by pro, which can best a less well supported argument from the other side