Islam is a religion of terror

Premise Rebuttal I: Descriptive and Prescriptive Text. I highly doubt that whilst writing, the quran’s authors were thinking ‘this is descriptive text, and this is prescriptive text’. How you construct intent here is not necessarily the intent of the authors, and will remain this way until you prove otherwise. Premise Rebuttal II: Definition. Con sets up an unfairly narrow definition of terror, and then accuses me of semantics when I point that out. This is a debate about terror, not my opponent’s narrow definition of it. Take note of “Terror” in my opponent’s arguments. Notice how it is frequently capitalised? Have a look for yourself! Notice how the resolution isn’t capitalised? In fact, notice that my opponent frequently continues to capitalise the word ‘terror’, despite the resolution not capitalising? He is using his own, narrow definition that isn’t specified in the resolution! But the funniest thing is that he is even subtly admitting it in his work! Again, I ask you think about a war which did not involve: intense fear, intense anxiety, frightful violence or bloodshed, etc. Terror in war is virtually assured, whereas women are unlikely to bring terror by themselves. Rebuttal I: Islamic Texts I. I’m going to drop the argument involving the Al-Fitnah ayah, because I’m wrong and for the sake of everyone, I want to remain intellectually honest. It does involve self-defence, however, the ayah also includes commandments of terror. I apologise for the error in judgement. “Fighting =/= Terror. Fighting and terror are different, this is why Warfare and Terrorism are referred to as different types of fighting.” Fighting almost always leads to terror. Could you please tell me of any instances that did not involve bloodshed, or intense feelings of anxiety, especially the ones in the quran? My opponent thinks that because the two aren’t the same, they are not related. “The Quran calls for fighting only in self-defense.” This is wrong (although, there are instances where self-defence is commanded), and I have a *fourth argument to show why… “There is a clear line between Descriptive Text and Prescriptive Text, The text she brought up is only Descriptive, displaying an understanding of the culture and history at the time, and nothing else.” Nowhere, in the quran or the Hadiths, does it talk of this. Do you think even the writers knew what the texts were, in terms of this? "All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages…" My opponent claims this, whilst admitting that he has not specifically explained why. Yes, I have misunderstood the two passages that he addressed, but it does not follow that the other ayahs are cherry-picked, and I will explain why they are not if my opponent decides to address my ayahs. A4 (*fourth argument): Abrogation and the ayah of the sword When there is contradiction in the quran, one is to retract the oldest of commandments, as Allah says: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (quran 2:106) Let’s have a look at abrogation in action: “There is no compulsion in religion…” (quran 2:256) This ayah suggests that you are not forced into Islam [2]. Well, Allah thought this was a bad idea, for the ayah was written in A.D ~622 [7][8], but another ayah of condemning non-believers was written in A.D 630/631[1]: “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then Kill the Muskrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and accept Islam … then leave their way free.” (quran 9:5) The two flatly contradict. The first ayah, one of tolerance to non-believers, is abrogated for the second, which promotes killing non-repenting infidels. It’s a cultural thing Some Muslims cut off hands as punishment [3]. Hands commanded to be cut off for crimes: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in Hereafter.” (quran 5:33) As expressed in the Hadith: “The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise till they died.” (Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 795) Some Muslims commit Jihad (struggle) bombing attacks (think 9/11) Suicide encouraged for martyrdom: “Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill and are killed. Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.” (quran 9:111) “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (quran 8:67) Coincidence? Rebuttal II: Allah and Women My opponent continues to straw-man my argument, continuing to argue purely in regards to Muslims. My argument has never been addressed properly in this debate. So, here it is again: 1) Some Muslims commit terror in the name of Islam 2) Allah is omnipotent and omniscient 3) Allah does not stop this terror 4) Therefore, we assume that Allah wants terror in the name of Islam “I ask Pro how Allah, someone who we ourselves don't believe in, would stop terrorism?” I’ve been through this: Allah is omnipotent and the author of creation. Do you not understand what such things entail? “Even if we did believe in him, did he not give everyone free will?” Sure, but he gave everyone free will, therefore he still wants terror. If he did not want terror, then he would not have granted free will. “This is the same as claiming to because the Government doesn't stop you from drinking, they promote drinking.” No, it isn’t, because governments aren’t omnipotent, nor are they the creators of the universe. Governments are limited in what they can do, compared to Allah. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I didn't drop Pro's quote. I acknowledged it, of course, in the Middle East and many places in the world, there is nothing immoral about that quote” My opponent digressed heavily on my quote, as my quote was about hitting women, and now you’re saying that in the Middle East and other places, there is nothing immoral about hitting women. Here is my argument again: 1) The quran commands men to hit women in some circumstances 2) The potential threat of being hit is meant to frighten women 3) Therefore, meaning to frighten, as well as the fright of being hit, pertains to terror This is my argument, and it would be wonderful if Con actually addressed it. Rebuttal IV: Religion v. Culture. “While Pro brings up a few who commit terror, I have shown that the majority whom read and interpret the Quran, interpret it as a book of peace, and are widely against terrorism and terror.” This is such an amusing argument, especially considering that Con accused me of judging a religion by its followers, in his straw-man of my other argument. Let me make this clear, again: Not all Muslims are violent. However, I’m arguing that the religion itself is violent, and this is indicated by the violent followers. The peaceful ones, which seem to be a majority, are incorrectly interpreting the quran. There is one thing I should mention… Muslims are allowed to lie: prevention (taqiyya) Here are a few examples: “The Prophet said, “War is deceit”” (Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 269) “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;” (quran 16:106) “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.” (quran 3:28) Basically, Muslims are allowed to lie to protect Islam, as might be the case in my opponent’s statistics. “Almost every argument Pro made in this section is made up, and the sources never makes their respective claim.” I ask you, as a member of the audience, not to take either of the debater’s words, and for you to search. Check my sources, and see for yourself if I am lying. I recommend using ‘control+f’ to scour my sources, but if you have a year or so of free time in the next 2 weeks, a manual search might be preferable. This way, you will find out who is lying. References/Sources [1] Ali, Yusef, "The Holy Qur'an", published by Amana, Beltsville, Maryland, USA, 1989 [2] Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition, Part 3, pp. 37-38 [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4] http://www.whyislam.org... [5] http://www.godallah.com... [6] http://www.thewaytotruth.org... [7] Chronology of Prophetic Events, Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (2001) p.52 Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. [8] MaM79;laM17;ah and the Purpose of the Law: Islamic Discourse on Legal Change from the 4th/10th to 8th/14th Century, Felicitas, Meta, Maria, Opwis, pg. 296. Volume 31 of Studies in Islamic Law and Society. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2010