Islam Vs Christianity - Violence or Peace Debate

WhiteJewel Is AbuJaiyana (http://www.facebook.
com/AbuJaiyana)
The Public Square > GENERAL CATEGORY > One On One
***Knightjp vs. WhiteJewel: Religious Violence Debate - exclusive

FAQ Community Calendar
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Thread Tools
Display Modes #1
10-27-09, 08:17
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471 ***Knightjp vs. WhiteJewel: Religious Violence Debate - exclusive
This debate will argue the following related propositions Part 1: Islam Promotes Violence: affirmative by Knightjp Part 2: Christianity Promotes Violence: affirmative by WhiteJewel Moderator: Ateo Start date: 28 October 2009 This is the exclusive thread to the parties of this debate. The format and the debate rules are shown below. Where the rules are explicit, I will apply the rules to specific situations. Where the rules are silent or implicit, I will extrapolate the applicable rules based on my interpretation of fairness and standard practice. Except when the outcome is decided by the moderator due to serious violation of the rules, this debate is decided in the heart and mind of individual members of the audience. I invite the audience to look at this debate in three important criteria: 1. Logical integrity - the ability to present a sound framework of the argument and build it with logical consitency 2. Factual support -- the ability to harness well documented facts 3. Emotional appeal -- the appealing combination of persuasiveness and gentlemanly observance of the rules Debate Format Part 1: Islam Promotes Violence 1. Affirmative Constructive: Knightjp 2. Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative: 10 questions max. 3. Affirmative replies to Cross-Examination of Negative 4. Negative Constructive: WhiteJewel 5. Cross-Examination of Negative by Affirmative: 10 questions max. 6. Negative replies to Cross-Examination of Affirmative Part 2: Christianity Promotes Violence 7. Affirmative Constructive: WhiteJewel 8. Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative: 10 questions max. 9. Affirmative replies to Cross-Examination of Negative 10. Negative Constructive: Knightjp
11. Cross-Examination of Negative by Affirmative: 10 questions max. 12. Negative replies to Cross-Examination of Affirmative Part 3 13. Affirmative Rebuttal: Knightjp 14. Negative Rebuttal: WhiteJewel 15. Affirmative Rebuttal: Whitejewel 16. Negative Rebuttal: Knightjp 17. Rejoinder/Conclusion: Knightjp 18. Rejoinder/Conclusion: WhiteJewel Behavioral Rules (numbered for easy reference.) 1. Constructive speeches/posts must be used by each side to present new arguments. 2. Cross-examination posts must be limited only to the constructive speeches or posts of the other side. 3. The debater being cross-examined is expected to answer the questions directly. 4. During the rebuttal speeches/posts, no new arguments may be presented. 5. Maximum Word Count limit for each post is 1,500 words. Questions are part of the word count. Clarifications are part of the word count. Clarifications may be requested but no expectation is to be made that it will be addressed. These will also be part of the word count. 6. Time limit is 3 days (72 hours) from the last post by the opponent. (Note: No further editing is allowed after posting. If editing is needed, PM the mod for permission and a correction post may be inserted if permitted, but no change to the original post is still allowed.) 7. No copy-paste from websites unless quoting "scripture" (Holy writings from either the Quran, Hadith, Tanakh or Christian New Testament) 8. All applicable forum rules on posting behavior will apply in this debate. Please refer to the established rules posted here:http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/sho...52&postcount=5 I highlight the following applicable items: 3, 5, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 19. Item 19 refers to the moderate use of smileys, which I will allow. 9. The moderator will keep track of behavioral scores and cite a debater for behavioral lapses. Having said so, we all have to accept the fact that the debate topic is controversial and the debate atmosphere is tense, so some posturings and "stage presence" are allowed. The audience has learned to expect that in a debate. (In other words, I won't be a straightlaced schoolmaster. :)) I will exercise prerogatives on when to cite a debater for misbehavior. 10. Debaters should not extend their debate in the peanut gallery. They are not allowed to post in the gallery that will further support their argument, rally their supporters, and criticize the opponent during the duration of the debate. In other words, there is only one debate -- and it is in the main thread. The debate rules behavior applies in the gallery as well. I will exercise moderator rights in the gallery. This does not prevent the debaters from posting things in the gallery, such as greetings, etc, that does not violate the earlier stated rule. 11. The debater has only one opponent. This means that you are not allowed to argue with the moderator. The moderator is not always right
and fair, but for the duration of the debate the debaters should accept the assumption that the moderator is trying his best to be fair despite the heated situation. If a debater has questions or would like the moderator to rule on something that the moderator may have missed, the debater should PM the moderator instead of cluttering the gallery with complaints. 12. The moderator reserves some rights: a. the right to close the threads if the continuation has become untenable. b. to make some comments at the end on the conduct of the debate
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646 Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers
Last edited by Ateo; 10-27-09 at 10:47.
10-28-09, 22:15
#2
kn1ghtjp
Thinker Christian brethren Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,830 Part 1 - 1. Affirmative Constructive
Ladies and Gentlemen, The question before us in this debate is Does Islam promote violence? In this, i would say unequivocally, YES. Something that we need to understand about Islam is that it is not a chiefly spiritual movement like Christianity. It is a system that is political, cultural, and religious all at the same time. It addresses not just issues of sin and forgiveness but of foreign policy, of the punishment of crimes, of what a person is supposed to wear. Islam splits the world into two realms: Dar Al Islam: the domain of the faithful and peace-loving and Dar Al Harb: those with whom Muslims are at war. Either you are of the house of Islam - House of Islamic Peace or you are in the house of War. And Islam dictates how Muslims treat each group. Islam does offer peace. What if i offer Islamic peace to each of you now? Submit to Islam and accept peace or be an unbeliever. And people know how muslims treat unbelievers... You dont accept? Why are you a war loving bigot? You dont want peace? Tsk... Based on my research, what i found out about islam, if ever i convert to Islam, i will kill you peace hating infidels. I will start with Ateo, and then Pooch and then everybody else. Not because i want to i like Pooch, but this is what Islam teaches. Islam they say is a religion of Peace. How do we know that Islam is NOT a religion of peace? When we examine the Islamic texts, we find the Islamic solution to practically everything is... VIOLENCE. If people reject Islam The solution is to fight and kill them. (VIOLENCE) If people criticise Islam The solution is to murder them. (VIOLENCE)
If people leave Islam The solution is to kill them. (VIOLENCE) If Muslim women disobey their husbands The solution is to beat them. (VIOLENCE) When criminals are caught the solution is to cut off parts of their bodies. (VIOLENCE) But if you submit to Islam, you will have PEACE, Islam style. We will examine this Islamic Peace that this political, cultural, and religious system brings the countries it has submitted under its rule. We will examine the founder of this system who exemplifies the Quran in action. He happens to be a murderous warlord who killed numerous people and started a killing spree that spread across the Arabian Peninsula, half of Byzantine Asia all Persia and Egypt, and most of North Africa. We will examine the teachings, the theology, the traditional uses of the Islamic text by Muslims that show a history of interpretation that mandates a theology of violence to "unbelievers"
Evidence of its Founder Evidence of History Evidence of its Teachings

1) Evidence of its Founder The teaching and example of Muhammad prescribes, describes and sanctions violence against non-Muslims (but if you submit[Islam] you will have peace). It cannot be denied that it is written in the Sirat Rasulallah, a biography of Muhammad that there were several instances that Muhammad commanded the death of several people. They may give excuses for this, argue that the Jews did worse, or that this is no different from any other violent country. This does not change the fact that these were acts of violence. Muhammad also allowed people to murder others who insulted him. Muhammad at least is so nice as to give advance warning at times: I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter. - hadith Here are a few examples that are exemplified in the Islamic texts Ibn Sunayna - murdered because he was simply a Jew Abu Afak - murdered while he slept Asma Marwan - murdered while she slept A slave woman, - murdered while she slept One-eyed shepherd - murdered while he slept An old woman - ripped in half by Muslims who captured her on a raid. A slave girl - murdered because she ridiculed Muhammad. This is the Islam Muhammad practiced. Telling his followers to attack Jews and Christians (but peace if they submit) because they were peacehating bigots who do not submit to Islam. Here is another sample command Muhammed gave his followers: "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5 Yes, peace to them if they submit. If they dont well, its their fault. That is Islamic peace. Normal people call it VIOLENCE. 2) Evidence of History When Islamic terrorists follow the teachings of Islam and blow up a building, or crash a plane full of people, they are said to be extremists,
only a small group, and not representative of muslims who follow the house of peace. Let us then look at those of the Dar Al Islam or the House of Peace where Sharia Law is practiced. If we look at countries with the most percentage of who are muslim, those that would be representative of this system of government and culture and religion, what do we see? Let me list a few countries with a muslim percentage of total population Afghanistan - 99.7% Tunisia -99.5% Iran -99.4% Western Sahara - 99.4% Azerbaijan - 99.2% Mauritania - 99.1% Yemen - 99.1% Iraq - 99% Morocco - 99% Niger - 98.6% Somalia - 98.5% Maldives - 98.4% Comoros - 98.3% Jordan - 98.2% Algeria - 98% Turkey - 98% Saudi Arabia - 97% Djibouti - 96.9% Libya - 96.6% Pakistan - 96.3% Uzbekistan - 96.3% Now, if there is one word that comes to mind when we look at this list of nations with each of their colourful histories, what is it? VIOLENCE Either they are those who intermittently war on neighbouring countries or they had violence because an Islamic country conquered them. 3) Evidence of its Teachings It cannot be denied that there is violence in the Islamic system if observed by non-muslims. How is it if Islam itself means Peace or submission to Allah? What we need to understand is what Islam considers as violence. Islam can claim to be opposed to violence, that is, when they define violence as rough or immoderate vehemence. They are also opposed to violence if violence means unjust force against the perceived rights of others. They do not call violence those acts which can be rough or injurious as long as it is in accordance with the sharia. As long as it is allowed by Islamic teaching, it is not violence but acts of peace, Islamic peace. Consider the following: Quran Sura 9:29-31: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Muslims would often say that these verses are quoted out of context so it is important for us to know the context. This says that under certain conditions, you can fight people and commit violence. Without these conditions, they should pursue peace. IF this, and that, even if they are the people of the book (Jews who believe in one God), until this and that, muslims should fight them. Actually, the passages say that without these limitations, muslims SHOULD do VIOLENCE.
As we can see, Islam does indeed promote PEACE in a sense but in their religions teachings and methods used in propagating their PEACE, ISLAM PROMOTES VIOLENCE.
__________________ Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD
10-28-09, 23:18
#3
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929
Cross Exam #1 In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum Peace Be Unto you This is the universal greetings in Islam taught by the Quran and our beloved Prophet pbuh So how could Islam be a violence-promoting religion??? Islam is not based on what people say or do, but what is taught in the Quran and the Teachings of Noble Prophet pbuh as an actual application of what has been revealed in the Quran. The Quran was revealed in stages for 23 years in segments with the corresponding event (asbabun nuzul) or reason for the revelation and whether it brings a general ruling or an instruction specific for certain situation. The Quran did not leave its interpretation open for everyone but it gives emphasis as to who should interpret it and this is none other than the man who understood it best, the Noble Prophet pbuh. 1. An-Nahl: With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect. (44) 2. And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. (59:7) I will only select some scattered points from kn1ghtjps 1st stand because some of his points are redundant. Questions for my opponent: If people reject Islam The solution is to fight and kill them 1. Give me the shariah source that says this and what is its basis from the Quran and the authentic ahadith Ibn Sunayna - murdered because he was simply a Jew 2. Give the authentic source for this event and was he executed by the order of the Prophet simply because he was a Jew.
"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful." Sura 9:5 3. When, where and why was this verse revealed? *as babun nuzul* You cited many countries which you considered Muslim countries implementing the shariah. My questions regarding them are these: 4. How did you know that those countries are practicing a mere shariah or a shariah islamiya? I would be delighted to know because no group of Muslim Scholars considers those countries implementing shariah islamiya. Even Saudi Arabia did not implement shariah islamiya in its totality. 5. Would you judge the religion based on what people do or based on what it actually teaches? Quran Sura 9:29-31: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 6. When, where and why was this verse revealed? *as babun nuzul* The rest of the names listed, I would not entertain because there is no authentic reference given and the identity of their persons are incomplete, where and when it happened. It is evident that kn1ghjp doesnt have an authentic source or book; he merely gets his information from anti-Islamic websites. It is also clear that he doesnt know the authentic sources of Islamic jurisprudence. I repeat, Islam is based on the Quran and the authentic ahadith. Even ahadith which are categorized as weak cant be used as evidence in Islamic Jurisprudence, how much more a mere isolated history? In kn1ghtjps response, you will see how poor his attack on Islam.
__________________ Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Surah 2:256
10-29-09, 10:25
#4
Ateo
Forum Deacon Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471
Excellent starting posts for the two debaters. We are off to a good start. Knightjp's affirmative reply is the next expected action. I have not observed any violation of the rules and format and none has been pointed out to me yet. I have, however, some observations for the consideration of the debaters in order to make the debate even easier to follow by our audience. 1. Knightjp's list of countries does not have a cited source. It needs one so that the audience can verify if the numbers are true. The same would have been needed in the list of murdered persons, but I won't dwell on that because it is subject to a cross question anyway. 2. WhiteJewel's opening paragraphs (12 lines) already look like a brief affirmative statement. There is a better place for that than in a crossexam post.
__________________
10-29-09, 12:15
#5
Ateo
Let me also add that WhiteJewel's second question can be seen as two distinct requests for responses separated by "and". Give the authentic source for this event and was he executed by the order of the Prophet simply because he was a Jew. But it is okay because he did not exceed the maximum number of questions anyway.
__________________
10-30-09, 07:39
#6
Ateo
Rulings: 1. I cite WhiteJewel for violation of Rule #10 (disallowed type of post in the gallery) because of his post #197. [1 point] 2. I issue a gentle warning for subsequent posts that WhiteJewel made in the gallery. The spirit of the rule is that there should not be any significant posts there that will support a debater's cause. [ 0 point] 3. I did not find Knightjp's post#190 at the gallery as a violation of Rule #10.
__________________
11-01-09, 03:02
#7
Ateo
Rulings: 4. I cite Knightjp for violation of Rule #6 (non-posting within the alloted time). This is a serious violation. [2 points] 5. With due respect to the great interest that this debate has generated in its audience and the presumed audience desire for this debate to continue, I give Knightjp an extension of 2 days (48 hours from from the time of this post) to post or send me an explanation by PM. Summary of infraction points: Knightjp: 2 WhiteJewel: 1
__________________
11-01-09, 21:26
#8
kn1ghtjp
Thinker Christian brethren Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,830 3. Affirmative replies to Cross-Examination of Negative
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very sorry for the late post. Here are my Affirmative replies to Cross-Examination of Negative On WJs opening comments regarding Islam, I would say that Islam is what Islam does as it is a product of its teachings. Im sure that WJ would not agree that Muslims are a bunch of hypocrites who teach one thing but do another. IF it can be demonstrated that Muslims are indeed hypocrites, then that would prove my proposition to be false but it is up to WJ to construct that argument to prove it. On WJs comments that only the noble prophet should interpret the Quran inferring that i should not do so, then i would argue that this also should apply to him if he tries to apply it to me. He himself should not interpret the Quran since he is not the noble prophet nor is he as cute as the noble prophet. He could not then tell us what it says. It would also be troublesome as the noble prophet did not leave interpretations in English and any translation would already contain an interpretation. Answers to Questions A1) WJ asks for a source - It is written in the Quran itself and is well known by many muslims and terrorist bombers. In fact, this is the verse that i quoted in point 3 Quran Sura 9:29-31: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. And since WJ doesnt like me giving commentary on his Quran, let me give you an explanation from a well known and respected muslim, Ibn Katheer who is known by muslims as a qadi, a master scholar of history and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator). (see: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20998 ) Now, even if the verse itself clearly says that they should fight the pagans and only the Christians or the Jews if and only if the do not pay the jizziyah (to humiliate them), in Ibn Katheers explanation, the master
muslim scholar writes that it is justified to include even the Jews and the Christians with the pagans since those who claim belief in the one God are no different from the pagans anyway. (see also: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986 note May Allah fight them who are the instruments of Allah? A) The muslims) Now, while i appreciate WJs help in pointing me to the shariah, his loaded question that infers it should be in the shariah to be Islamic teaching would have to presuppose that if it were not articulated in the shariah, it would NOT be muslim teaching and therefore it would not be part of Islam. I do not think my muslim opponent would try to argue that proposition. A2) Here is where WJ asks: Give the authentic source for this event and was he executed by the order of the Prophet simply because he was a Jew. The event is told in Sirah Rasul Allah (the collection of biographies of Muhammmad) specifically the text attributed to Ibn Ishaq gathered from the writings of Ibn Hisham (As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah) and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (al sirah). The text in English says: The apostle said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas`ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Here is an excerpt by Sunan Abu Dawud http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/c....html#019.2996 To be fair to WJ, the texts condition is not simply because if the man is a Jew. The muslim also must have him in his power or must have gained a victory over him. Otherwise, it would obviously be very difficult to kill him if he is not in a position to do so. I will have to concede that issue. A3) WJ asks for a commentary giving a contextual background on Sura 9:5. Although i am flattered that WJ would ask me for such a grand undertaking (completely designed to waste my time IMHO) let me give the opinion and commentary of a few of the most well known Muslim Scholars. Material from the Maariful Tafsir
It means that they had, though, forfeited all their rights by breaking the treaty obligation, but observing the sanctity of the sacred months was after all necessary, therefore, they should either leave the Arabian Peninsula soon after the sacred months expire, or embrace Islam, or be prepared to face war.
The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir

... Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat (verse or passage) as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its ruling and obligations.
The Tafsir of Jalalayn

... until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam ...
A4) In this question, WJ asks if the countries listed were practicing a mere shariah or a shariah islamiya . In this, my answer is that i do not make any distinction. Whether it is one of 7 flavours of shariah or a mickey mouse shariah is not my argument rather that these countries were populated by muslims and would be countries representative of countries that observe muslim teaching. If WJ wishes to argue that if a country does not practice shariah islamiya then they are not a muslim country because they are muslims practicing mere shariah, he will be free to do so in his constructive.
A5) Asks how Islam is to be judged (based on what people do or based on what it teaches). As i stated in my constructive, Islam is a political, cultural, and religious movement. How do you judge a religious system? A) by its beliefs. How do you judge a political system? A) By both its policies AND its actions. How do you judge a culture? A) by what its people do. In this, Islam, being a religious, political, and cultural system, it should be judged by all three. In WJ's question, the answer then is both. Islam is both what Islam does and what Islam teaches. A6) Here again WJ asks me for an exposition on a famous passage that was used by the terrorist bombers of 9/11 to justify their actions. Again i would like to point to the words of Ibn Katheer, a most respected Muslim Scholar and commentator his explanation for the passage. Please refer to the links in A1) that deal with this exact same passage. This question has been fully dealt with in A1) While WJ says he will pretend that the rest of the names listed do not exist i would like to remind him that i do not ask for his birth certificate to prove that he exists. When i mention Gloria Arroyo or the Showbiz daughter of Cory Aquino, both names or identities though incomplete should be familiar to him without citing sources or documentation, the burden of proof is on him to prove that such people dont exist because historical sources have not been cited for Gloria Arroyo or Cory Aquino. He chose not to cross examine the facts presented or clarify if they are unclear to him, thus they stand. I do think WJ would be the very first person to jump up and down if i presented a fact he knows does not exist. WJ even tries to argue that the proposition "Islam promotes violence" is false because in his words "how poor his (kn1ghtjp's) attack on Islam (is)". I would advise him to save all his arguments for his constructive.
11-02-09, 00:18
#9
Ateo
Thank you for your post, Knightjp. The debate will now proceed to Item 4 of the Format -- the Negative Contructive. I believe that this debate is shaping up very well and may exceed the already high expectations of its audience. Good luck to the debaters.
__________________
11-02-09, 04:05
#10
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 4. Negative Constructive
In the name of God Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Let me greet you with the universal Islamic Greetings, Assalamu Alaikum, which means May Peace Be with you. Islam comes from the root word silm or salam which literally means peace. In Islamic concept, it means peace through submission complete submission to the will of God Almighty. Complete submission to the will of God produces peace between man and God, between man and his fellow men, and between man and the rest of Gods creation. Islam doesnt only teach to respect the rights of every human being, but also to respect the rights of plants and animals. If a person submits to Islam completely, surely he could attain peace within himself, and with his fellow men. Does Islam promote violence? Obviously NO! In fact it is a promoter of peace as explained above. The Quran says that , killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. 5: 32 What could be more fearful on the Day of Judgment when a person will be held responsible for killing the whole humanity that is as if you killed Adam, all the Prophets, until the last infant born before the world ends? Islam is not based on what the people do, but it is what the people is supposed to do as instructed in the Quran and the authentic ahadith, nor that Islam is based on hearsay, isolated stories ect. Had it not because of the so-called SAHIH ISNAD, people could interpret anything as they wish about matters in Islam. My opponent was correct in his understanding that Islam is not just a mere religion which is concerned only about spiritual matters. It is a complete way of life; political, economic, social, ect. This is why when the mission of the Noble Prophet was about to end and all instructions have been cleard, God revealed this verse This day I have perfected you deen *way of life translated as religion* for you, and completed My favor upon you and choosen Islam ay your deen. 5:3
Islam is based on the so-called five pillars: 1 to testify that there is no god but God and Muhammad s.a.w. is Gods last prophet *after Jesus Christ a.s.* 2 Establishing the 5 obligatory prayers in a day, 3 Giving charity to the poor when ones wealth reach to the specified limit , 4 Observing fast on the month of Ramadan if one is able, and 5 pilgrimage to the ancient house of worship built by Abraham and his son Eshmail if one is able financially and physically. sahih bukhari, book 2 hadith #7 Islam teaches that after believing in God, the next thing to do is to respect the parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neigbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer, and those slaves *as part of the norms before*. Verily God does not like such as proud and boastful. 4:36. This is not an option for a Muslim, but an obligation to done as much as one can. If every person does them, therell be no violence but peace on earth. God has informed us in the Quran that all of mankind is in the state of lose as time goes by with the exception of those 1- who believe in God, 2 -do righteous good deeds by enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, 3 - advice one another about the truth and 4 - those who recommend one another to patience. 103:1-3 The Noble Prophet said None of you will have faith till he wishes for his brother *fellow men* what he wishes for himself sahih bukhari, book 2 hadith #12 This teaching is considered to be much better than Confucius so-called golden rule because it doesnt just discourages people to harm other people, but it further encourages people to wish for his fellowmen what he wishes for himself Love. He further said when he was asked what sort of deeds in Islam are good, To feed the poor and greet those whom you know and those you dont know sahih bukhari, book 2 hadith #27. I can list hundreds of good deeds that every Muslim is required to do as much as he can for the sake of God, but a million words is not enough here so to speak esp. with the word limit allowed. Islam forbids killing without just cause 5:32, and even with the permission to take the life of a certain individual, its not for anyone to judge, but by the legitimate government with its judicial system. Example are those who commit murder, 17: 33 those who incite sedition or treason and the like called apostates, and those who abandon his deen, that is, not following or willful disobedience to the government that would lead to civil disobedience. In these instances, Islam allows the government only to take the life of an individual in order to maintain peace and order in the community. 6: 151 A latin maxim says salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law. It is as if injecting a painful medication to ones body. Though its painful at the injection site, the benefit of making the body cured from a disease outweighs the suffering of that pain. In
times of war, soldiers are allowed to kill but with exceptions; children, women, priests or religious leaders, old men, animals, cut trees with no purpose. Soldiers are only to fight the combatants from the enemies. Islam also prohibits backbiting it is as if you eat the dead flesh of your dead brother, who would want that?? 49:12. It is not even allowed to spy one another or to have too much suspicion. Islam also forbids anything that intoxicates because this could be a cause, as a matter of fact, a great cause of violence among the people. Satan uses it to excite enmity and hatred among the people 5:90-92. All what that I have explained above are only few things about Islam being a peaceful religion, but it is already enough to conclude that Islam does hate violence, but rather it promotes peace. Let me now come about the so-called violent verses in the Quran. Ignorant people interpret the Quran like they do to the bible or other literatures; pick and choose, copy & paste. There are methods in interpreting the Quran: Quran interprets itself intertextual interpretation The reason of the revelation of an ayah asbabun nuzul (Ulum Al Quran pp. 155-156) How the Noble Prophet interpret it Tafseer bis sunnah surah 16:44 & 59:7 (Ulum Al Quran p. 214) How the Sahabah has understood it - (Ulum Al Quran p. 215) Let me address the verses quoted by my opponent and see how poor and faulty those allegations are: Surah 9:5 This verse was revealed in connection to the treachery of the pagan Beduin Arabs who ambushed the Muslim army without any justification but only hatred to Islam despite the existing peace treaty. This was revealed on Dhul Qadah 9 AH. (Intro. To the Quran p.23). The Muslims on that time in Madina has an established government. It is an inherent right of any state to exercise its governmental powers i.e sovereignty against any rebels. However, this command applies only to those who were responsible for the treacherous among them and doesnt want to repent. Those who repent and ask for protection shall be given protection and be escorted to a place of safety 9:6 . My opponent doesnt even bother to read the next verse which explains the context of the verse 5. Sura 9:29-31- This was revealed in connection to the killing of the ambassador of the Muslims Al Harith bin Umair Al Azdi by the Byzantines, Rajab, year 9 AH. This considered as an open declaration of war against one state. (Ar-raheeq Al makhtum p.422). So if they wont surrender the culprits then the Muslims were allowed to retaliate for Justice. As we see, those verses are NOT commandments for every Muslim living today. They are general guidelines that could be applied in situations when an ambassador of an Islamic state is killed without just
cause; its armies are killed without just cause. This is practiced by almost all, if not all, government today because it is logical and practical. Islam doesnt kill people just because they dont accept Islam because there is no compulsion in religion 2:256 Islam is not what the Arabs or naughty Muslims do. It is what it actually teaches. It promotes peace and resists evil. In my humble study with this religion, and on the authentic sources which I have provided, I would say that only those ignorant in Islamic jurisprudence would say that Islam promotes violence. Thank you.
11-02-09, 13:11
#11
Ateo
Thank you for your prompt post, WhiteJewel. We now proceed to Item #5 of the debate format - Cross examination questions by the Affirmative.
__________________
11-02-09, 13:19
#12
Ateo
Rulings: 6. There was a question on the appropriateness of quotations (blue text) made by Knightjp in his post #8 in light of Rule #7 (rule limiting quotes from the internet). After a thorough study, I rule that Knightjp is not in violation of the rule. My detailed explanation is shown in the Gallery, post #232. [ 0 point] http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/sho...=46454&page=16 7. While I studied the above issue, I noticed that Knightjp has improved in attributing sources. However, he is still not thorough enough because he failed to cite the sources of his three quotes. I issue this last warning that all quotes must cite their sources. [ 0 point]
__________________
11-04-09, 21:29
#13
kn1ghtjp
Thinker Christian brethren Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,830
We would like to thank WJ for the taqiyya he has given to us infidels. It is my sincere hope that he is not mistaken in thinking that his efforts are unappreciated and that we do not see his posts for what they truly are. I am sure that we, that is, the audience and i would appreciate some points of clarification though. The questions for WJ are listed below: 1. Is it your argument that since Islam preaches peace, therefore it cannot promote violence? 2. There are three Arabic words that can be variously translated as peace. They are as transliterated, salaam, hudna, and suhl. Salaam is the peace of submission as you have mentioned in your constructive submit to Allah and you will have peace (or else). Hudna is the word used for a cease-fire or a temporary truce. And then there is SUHL which means reconciliation. It is the word used when conflict and hostility is to be ended and amity and friendships between groups is desired. Is this last meaning the peace that you say Islam preaches in your constructive? 3. Is it your argument that since Islam forbids intoxication, therefore, Islam cannot promote violence? 4. In your constructive, you mentioned Let me address the verses quoted by my opponent and see how poor and faulty those
allegations are By this, do you mean to say that the explanations given by the respected muslim scholars Ibn Katheer, Jalal al-Din alMahalli and his student, and the professor and grand Mufti of Darul-Uloom Deoband, the well-known university of the Islamic Sciences, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi who wrote the Ma'ariful-Qur'an, are poor and faulty? Do you mean to say that their allegations are wrong and that yours is right or that both yours and theirs are right even if your explanation and theirs differ?
I sincerely hope that WJ could clarify these questions for us. I would have liked to ask more questions regarding his constructive, but the number and quality of his arguments seem sorely lacking and severely hampers my doing so, I hope that WJ has not forgotten that he cannot construct new arguments in the rebuttals and is now stuck with the arguments he has constructed thus far. It just seems such a waste.
11-05-09, 18:47
#14
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 6. Negative replies to Cross-Examination of Affirmative
In the Name of God, Most Gracious Most Merciful
Before Ill answer the CE questions for me by kn1ghtjp, I would like to point out his hypocrisy in alleging me of making taqqiyyah in giving my answers and negative construct. I call it HYPOCRISY because taqqiyyah mean to lie or to pretend in order to save ones life. His definition of taqqiyyah is so faulty in Islamic concept, and that he showed clear ignorance in Islamic terms. I dont know how kn1ghtjp had the guts in engaging with this kind of debate when he has very poor knowledge about Islam and as we saw, his sources are from websites. This is the very reason why it would take a very long time for kn1ghtjp to post his arguments, even only asking CE questions about my argument. I find it as an ad hom for accusing me of making taqqiyyah in a negative sense. This accusation has no basis at all because taqqiyyah is an act of the mind which means only the person who does it and God alone could know about it so how could somebody accuse one person of making taqqiyyah when he doesnt know what is in the mind of that person. Its a clear HYPOCISY. This is the reason why I challenge him for this type/kind of debate because he blasphemed our God while he is moderating our debate with benmarcing. His attitude didnt change. I hope the moderator will make an appropriate action for this ad hom. Answers to my opponents questions:
1. I did not only explain that Islam preaches peace but also I clearly emphasized that it promotes peace. Therefore, to think or assume that it also teaches violence is a big mistake because it would be a clear contradiction of terms. There is no such thing as 100% white and 100% black both at the same time. I also explained that though Islam allows an Islamic government to fight or take the life of a certain individual in order to maintain peace and order in the society, and this is being practiced by all governments Islamic and non-Islamic alike. Issuing a gun to a police officer who is ready to shoot a criminal who doesnt want to surrender doesnt mean that the government is violent. It is in fact a way of maintaining peace and order in the society. So Islam doesnt only preach peace but also promotes peace and therefore doesnt and cant promote violence.
2. I clearly explained the Islamic definition of Islam; that it literarily means peace. In Islamic concept, it means peace through submission complete submission to the will of God Almighty. Complete submission to the will of God produces peace between man and God, between man and his fellow men, and between man and the rest of Gods creation. I just dont know where and how did kn1ghtjp thought about HUDNA and SUHL. Kn1ghtjp must had a weird imagination in finding mistakes in my post for almost 3 days ago. Let me teach him basic concept in Arabic language: Arabic is a very rich language; one root word could form many words out of it, but those words sound the same or bear the root word which they were formed. Example: Islam, salam, salama, silm, ect. I would like to ask my opponent to explain how Islam, hudna, and suhl, relate to each other in terms of their meanings and root word in his rebuttal/s. This must be new information for us. So Islam is what I already have defined in my negative construct, and not these HUDNA and/or SUHL stuff. I have never heard of any scholar or authentic Islamic books using Islam, hudna and suhl interchangeable. It is so clear that my opponent did not understand the examples and clear explanation in my negative construct. 3. I clearly said that God told us in the Quran that anything that intoxicates is forbidden. Intoxicants like any wine or beer which the Christian doesnt forbid are forbidden in Islam. Satan uses them to incite enmity among people. When a person is drunk, he loses his dignity, he reveals secretes that should not be revealed, and usually fight our people just for some little things, ect. So by forbidding wine, beers, ect. Is not only a means of promoting peace, but also one of the ways of preventing violence. I would suggest to my opponent to understand the context of everything that I have mentioned. I believe that my English is so easy for us to understand.
4. You quoted what you called tafseer of different scholars, but you did not put the entirety of their tafaseer which is so doubtful and cant be used as evidence. You did not mentioned the book title, page number of those tafaseer. In court, it is inadmissible as evidence because it is considered as fruit of a poisonous tree because you just copied it from anti-Islamic websites which are fond of fabricating documents. Even some ahadith are now being distorted and fabricated. This is why we need to cross check them with our authenticated codices here. Next time, when you quote Islamic scholars, dont just do cherry-picking, put the entirety of their tafaseer, provide the title of their book and the page number and volume number as well. I have here the 10 volumes of tafseer Ibn Katheer it says exactly what you have quoted. Cherry-picking never works on me kn1ghtjp especially in matters about my religion. The asbabun nuzol which I have provided for those verses are more than enough to refute your arguments, and a solid proof that you and whichever websites you copied from DISTORTED the context of those scholars tafaseer.
Now, ladies and gents;
It is clear for me that my opponent merely relies on websites. He didnt really have the sure knowledge about Islam except of what we call TSISMIS, and a person who does it is known as STISMOSO. I would be very ashamed if Ill assert that something or someone is such and such based on hearsay. As you have seen, I provided the clear references of my arguments, page number, etc. I dont rely on websites because it is a very ridiculous thing to do. On the other hand, my opponent kn1ghtjp has given us LINKS of websites which are not recognized by the mainstream of Islamic Scholarship. This is also a clear evidence that kn1ghtjp merely relies on websites. It is also clear that kn1ghtjp doesnt know the hierarchy of laws in Islamic jurisprudence. This is his big, big problem. If you are presented with sahih ahadith, you dont opposed it with anybodys opinion or interpretation because surely that is a clear sign of ignorance. It is as if you are trying to invalidate a statute (Republic Act) with an ordinance. This will never work at all. My opponent wrote: I hope that WJ has not forgotten that he cannot construct new arguments in the rebuttals and is now stuck with the arguments he has constructed thus far. It just seems such a waste.
I say, kn1ghtjp is hoping that the will outshine the sun at daytime during
summer. I was hoping that he could find a single mistake of what I have posted, but he have shown nothing. He did not attack my presentation about Islam being a religion of peace but merely questioned about the credibility of his sources. Hindi man lang naka-tama kahit isang suntok lang so to speak. Thank you. Ill post my affirmative construct soon after mod ateo will give me the go signal.
Peace!
11-06-09, 09:07
#15
Ateo
I thank WhiteJewel for yet another prompt posting. It is an impasssioned response to the cross examination. To our audience, we thank you for your intense attention to this debate. We have reached the end of Part 1 -- Islam Promotes Violence. We will now proceed to Part 2 -- Christianity Promotes Violence. This time, WhiteJewel will start with his Affirmative Constructive. He may proceed.
__________________

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Thread Tools
Display Modes #16
11-06-09, 09:42
Ateo
Housekeeping tasks are in order... Rulings 8. WhiteJewel found Knightjp's use of Taqqiyyah as an ad hom. I did not find it as such. While I emphatize with WhiteJewel's feeling of being offended when somebody uses his religious concepts erroneously, but I cannot find a clear blasphemy or ad-hom in it. For the benefit of our audience and as WhiteJewel pointed out, Taqqiyyah refers to the concept of lying to conceal one's faith when under serious risk. Knightjp's use of the term is simply an artful or innovative way of saying that WhiteJewel is concealing the violent nature of his religion. And that is a valid argument in a debate. [0 point] 9. On the other hand, WhiteJewel used the term "TSISMOSO" in the context of "a person who does it is known as STISMOSO. I find this almost ad-hom except of that he did not direct it to Knightjp but to "a person" in general, although the direction is clear. Gentle warning. I found it slightly more serious though his use of the term "ignorant in his post #10 in the context of "only those ignorant in Islamic jurisprudence would say that Islam promotes violence." This is uncalled for because the debate topic is precisely that -- Islam promotes violence -- so WhiteJewel is saying that anybody, just anybody, who debates on the affirmative is automatically ignorant. Serious warning. Again, this does not constitute ad-hom but it is right at the edge and I will be less tolerant next time. [0 point] 10. A poster complained against WhiteJewel's use of the phrase "Hindi man lang naka-tama kahit isang suntok lang." I did not find the phrase objectionable. [0 point] In conclusion, I am in a dilemma here. On one hand, I like acerbic comments in a debate (I like my lemon juice really sour :)). On the other hand, I am tending a pressure-cooker debate here so I have to keep a strong hand on the lid, guys. So, please keep the acerbic comments but be subtle and creative, although, frankly, I will be the one to decide if you have been subtle enough or already too brutal. :)
__________________
11-06-09, 23:24
#17
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Part 2: Christianity Promotes Violence 7. Affirmative Constructive
In the Name of Allah ,*God Almighty* Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Greetings to all; I welcome everyone with the Islamic greetings, Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuh. * May Peace and Blessings of Almighty God be on all of you. Let me remind our observers on the issue on this part 2 debate. It is the issue on whether or not Christianity promotes violence. I want to give more emphasis on Christianity rather than Christians because there are peace-loving Christians despite violent teachings of Christianity, as there are also violent muslims despite peaceful teachings of Islam. In this part of my speech, we would be able to know whether or not my opponent is truly an advocate of the violent teaching of Christianity or he is among the peace-loving people. Being violent or peace-loving is an act of the heart and mind. A person may not be doing anything wrong yet, but he is considered as violent if he doesnt condemn violence because it is an express adherence to it. Christian faith is based on the teachings of the bible. Doctrines like original sin, lamb sacrifice, ect are rooted in the OT, hence, the OT is an integral part of the Christian faith. Christianity claims to be monotheist, therefore the God in the OT is the same God in the NT, please take note. When we read the OT, we find passages about wars, killings, ect, which seem to be violent in nature. However, war is in itself cant be considered promoting violence especially if it is done in order to suppress oppression and or crimes. It is in fact an inherent right of every community or state to protect the people from any form of oppression and or crime; this is in fact promoting peace rather than violence. My objection is not those wars mentioned in the OT but the direct orders from God which are clearly inhumane from both theists and atheists point of view. Examples:
1. Killing of infants during the war - Isaiah 13:15-18 2. Killing of women *non-combatant women* 3. Killing of animals which had nothing to do with the war - 1 Samuel 15:2-3 4. Mass genocide which is a horrible crime in any society - Ezekiel 9:57, Joshua 6:20-21, Judges 20:48 5. Killing of the followers of other religions - Deuteronomy 13:712, Exodus 22:19, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 6. Killing of Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Those are just few of numerous passages in the OT which is taught in Christianity as genuine order/direct order from God of both the OT and NT. Now, my points are the following: 1. What is/are the rationale, logical, humane explanation in Christianity why their God give those horrible mass murder crimes? I cant see any reason why infants, women, children, believers of other religion be put to death, and even the cattles and livestocks too. What crime did they commit so that death is justified for them?? 2. Does my opponent condemn or condone the mass murder ordered by the biblical God in the OT??? If he doesnt condemn it, it means he condone it because no rational person could remain silent about evil things especially about mass murders and/or genocide. Let me proceed to the NT: According to Christianity Jesus is God who came down to earth. Being stuck in a human body, his power became limited as he is to act as a Lamb of God yet still God in and of itself Jesus is God in human flesh as they call him. Now, if there is one God, and Jesus is God, then he is the very same God who ordered the genocide and mass murder in the OT. The way he spoke is really so provocative and murderous; Examples: 1. A wicked and adulterous generation.Matthew 12:39 2. You snakes! You blood of vipers! Matthew 23:33 3. You foolish people! Luke 11:40 4. He said But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27 5. The woman came and knelt before him Lord help me she said. Jesus replied it is not right to take the childrens bread and toss it to the dogs. Matthew 15:25-26
Now, if you take Jesus as an example or model for yourself and you go and preach and call people with these very insulting, disrespectful, impolite, and tyrannical words, what peace could we expect from it?? Remember, a person who follows Jesus example in the bible is called a Christian, a word derived from Christ (Jesus) Thus, Christianity promotes violence. Now, some may say that Jesus and his disciples did not wage war against the people so they must be peace-loving people because they only encouraged love. The answer is obvious; during Jesus time and up to the time of his supposed disciples, they were under a tyrant government the Romans. In fact, it was the Romans who crucified Jesus based on NT account. One time Jesus ordered his disciples to sell their garments in order to buy sword. When Jesus was arrested, Peter stroke his sword to one of the armies and cut off his ear. But Jesus, seeing that the enemies outnumbered them, ordered his disciples to put down their sword and said those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. The disciples of Jesus were extremely afraid of the Romans and the Jews; after the alleged cruci-fiction of Jesus they went to the upper room hiding for they were not allowed to work on Sabbath to the extent that they made the room well closed so no one could see or notice them. How could you expect this small group to wage war? What those so-called disciples did is obey the tyrannical and pagan government, BUT the hope for Jesus to come back anytime soon is there and when we read the bible, it says that when Jesus comes back, he will kill all his enemies ATHIESTS, AGNOSTICS, MUSLIMS, etc., watch out all of you will be killed if you dont follow him. Paul, who wrote the 50% of the NT who was not a disciple of Jesus, did not focus on waging war because he had an obsession that Jesus will come back anytime very soon. He thought that Jesus will descend from heaven while he is still alive a take him, but unfortunately, Jesus never did until now. Now we clearly see the clear pattern When Christianity is on the upper hand, they dont hesitate killing anybody who doesnt join them just like what their God did in the OT. HOWEVER, when they are weak, theyll say oh cease fire, we are peace-loving guys BUT when Jesus comes back theyll going to kill the non-Christians per Jesus order; But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27. Do you remember the pagan emperor who became a Christian? He was Constantine, the one who standardized or shall we say made the trinity to be the official Christian doctrine. The Christians were on power then, and what did they do??? Kill the followers of other religions; hunt the witches, murders and genocide here and there. Do you know about the crusade and the inquisition period? Those were the times when the Christians were on power.
It was not until the resistant of the disciples of Prophet Muhammad pbuh lead by Khalid ibn Al Waleed which put an end to the tyrannical Christians by throwing them out of the scene, Palestine, Syria, Constantinople (Turkey) Egypt and other places. Thanks to God that He restored Peace through sending His last Prophet pbuh. SUMMARY: 1. My opponent has to give a logical/rational, and humane explanation of the genocide and mass murder orders of his God in the OT 2. Will my opponent condemn or condone those horrible genocide and mass murders? 3. The murderous, disrespectful, insulting, and impolite words of Jesus in the bible, how would they promote peace? Would you dare to utter those words in front of the atheists and Muslims? 4. The murderous intent of Jesus when he comes back which is according to Christian belief would surely happen; what about the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and other non-Christians? 5. When given the power, Christians, as they did, killed all those who dont follow them which is legitimate based on OT law and Jesus murderous intent and the prophecy about his second coming making the dead bodies of the non-Christians his footstool. I believe that based on the biblical and historical references which I cited, Christianity is indeed a violent religion, and it promotes violence though they seem to be peace-loving because they are not yet on power. We would also know whether or not kn1ghtjp is a peaceful Christian despite violent Christian teachings.
Thank you.
11-07-09, 14:03
#18
Ateo
Thank you very much, WhiteJewel, for your post on the Affirmative position of the proposition that "Christianity promotes violence." Knightjp may proceed to post his cross examination questions.
__________________
11-09-09, 20:25
#19
kn1ghtjp
Thinker Christian brethren Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,830 8. Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative
Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank you for your patience in being able to read thus far into the debate. In the previous debate post, WJ was supposed to have constructed his arguments for why he believes that Christianity promotes violence. Let us examine his logic (or lack thereof). 1. He gives us in bold letters: Christianity claims to be monotheist, therefore the God in the OT is the same God in the NT, please take note. Islam claims to be monotheistic, therefore.... Could WJ please complete the above sentence using the same logic? 2. With reference to the main argument that WJ brings us, kill kill kill, maim, kill, kill, yada, yada, yada. Along the same vein as if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, cut off your arm, etc. WJ proposes that this is the teaching of Christianity therefore Christianity must be a violent religion with a whole history of killings and beheadings and terrorist bombers and a whole lot of one-eyed, one arm Christians walking around because of Christian teachings. My question to WJ is, why do i find what hes described so familiar and yet so foreign to Christianity? Why cant i take him seriously? (WJ can consider these as 2 separate questions) I think it is because it all sounds very Islamic. Is WJ projecting? (This is a rhetorical question and does not require an answer.)
Ladies and gentlemen, due to the strength of my opponents arguments, i have no further questions your honours. The defense rests. I might as well
sleep until closing arguments.
__________________
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD
11-09-09, 22:25
#20
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 9. Affirmative replies to Cross-Examination of Negative
In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
At last kn1ghtjp has posted his long-awaited cross exam questions for me. I was expecting 10 questions from him because I presumed that he must have thought so deeply about my last post. However, sadly speaking, it turns out that he didnt understand my arguments as to why Christianity promotes violence. Before I proceed, I would like to thank the BARM admin for having this king of interfaith dialogue in the internet; we are afforded the opportunities to explain and argue our respective religions and beliefs. Answers to Kn1ghtjps lonely questions:
1. Basically, he did not understand my point when I wrote that Christianity claims to be monotheist; he wants to equate it with Islam since Islam claims to be monotheist too.
The answer or the explanation to that particular point is also written so boldly; therefore the God in the OT is the same God in the NT. This is to point out that since the Christians accept both the old and the new testaments as inspired word of God and since they believe that there is only one God, then it surely means that the God of the Old testament who ordered the killings of infants, non-combatant women, innocent children, poor animals which has got nothing to do with the war, is the very same God who inspired the new testament. So Im so sorry for you kn1ghtjp; the logic that you want me accept doesnt work because we dont accept the OT and the NT as word of God per se. As a matter of fact Ive been challenging Christians here about the bible being a word of God or not. I am basically saying to them that your bible is not the word of God though it may contain some good teachings from the prophets of God.
So, it doesnt work in both ways. Your bible teaches killings of innocent people such as infants, women, children, and animals without just cause, while the Quran allows taking of life if there is just cause in order to maintain peace and order in the society.
And when Jesus comes back, he will kill the non-Christians; Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews ect, and he will make their dead bodies his footstool, and this prophecy is according to Christian faith must and would be fulfilled. So the pattern is clear and the intent is clear. Thus, your religion promotes violence, while Islam promotes peace because we dont force people to accept Islam because we are told that there is no compulsion in religion Surah 2:256 as simple as that! We are expecting you to explain, in your negative construct, the rationale, logical and humane reason why your God ordered those mass genocides of infants, women, children and animals. His foul language towards others and his horrible murderous intent and plan when he comes back. Why should we be killed if we dont accept Christianity? Whether you condone or condemn those genocides in the OT and the would be genocides when Jesus comes back.
We will know whether or not you are a peaceful Christian despite violent teachings of Christianity in your reply. 2. "With reference to the main argument that WJ brings us, kill kill kill, maim, kill, kill, yada, yada, yada" I find this statement like those of the evil mongers; what are these yada yada stuff?? As if I am debating withnever mind. In my arguments and contentions, I cited clear verses from the bible which kn1ghtjp faithfully believes in. I didnt use examples which are not absolutely related to Christian faith in general because it could be rejected right away. Citing clear verses from the bible is so strong for an argument because they are part and parcel of Christian faith whether a single Christian individual likes it or not. Kn1ghtjps contention is that there are verses in the bible also that teach or promote peace. Well, indeed there are verses in the bible that teach peace I admit, but these dont and cant justify the mass genocide of women, infants, children and animals. These orders were given by Jesus himself because if Jesus is God according to Christianity, then he is the very same God in the OT, unless kn1ghtjp will argue that the God in the OT and the God in the NT are two different Gods; but in this case kn1ghtjp will no longer be a Christian anymore but a polytheist. We have to remember also that Jesus did not abrogate his orders in the OT but he will fulfill it and would continue to kill the non-Christians when he comes back making their dead bodies his footstool. So, as I said in my last post, todays Christians so-called peaceful teachings are but temporary in nature because when Jesus comes back, theyll go and kill everyone who doesnt want to follow them. What about the so-called bombers?? Well, as I said Islam doesnt teach violence but peace. If those people understood Islam wrongfully, then that is their problem and not of Islam. Perhaps they did not study the
Quran carefully, rather they studied the BIBLE because the bible teaches that it is OKAY to KILL innocent women, infants, children and cattle. So if you want to get rid of those bombers, give them the Quran and let them ask us its correct interpretation. But if you want to have them as they are *bomber, terrorists, ect* GIVE THEM YOUR BIBLE because surely they will find clear bases of what they are doing. BTW if you have no intention of posting long arguments, please post them ASAP. I fell that people in the gallery fell bored of waiting for your post. Its just a suggestion anyway.
Thank you.
11-10-09, 10:04
#21
Ateo
I thank WhiteJewel for his post. We have now reached item #10 in our format. Knightjp may now proceed with Negative Constructive of the proposition that Christianity promotes violence. Let me also take this opportunity to commend WhiteJewel for his prompt postings. Both debaters post within the alloted time and are making excellent arguments. But the flow of the debate and the enjoyment/learning of the audience are better served if the postings are fast, so a small commendation to WhiteJewel is in order.
__________________
11-11-09, 21:52
#22
kn1ghtjp
Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me begin by saying that i am not a pacifist. On the other hand, neither am i a violent person. When WJ insisted on an additional proposition as a condition for his agreeing to a debate examining the basis for the violence in Islam, and that argument is that Christianity promotes violence, i thought to myself, you have got to be joking. For one, unlike Islam, Christianity is not about pretending peace or promoting war. Though it is true that when one claims to be a Christian, people come to expect peaceful behaviour (contrast that with people from Islam), Christianity is not a teaching that promotes either peace or violence. yet it is true that peaceful behaviour is an indirect result though not the primary focus of Christianity. In WJs constructive, he pulls out passages from the bible and says Ha! You see? This is what your bible teaches! as if he has found some revelation that only he can see that no-one has ever noticed before. Guess what? This the Bereans forum and we have all heard that before. More people like to misquote the bible than any other book. They recognize that the bible has words of power and carry authority. They get borrowed authority but cannot convince those who know the truth. There are more than a hundred other groups that pull stuff from the bible and say The bible teaches this! The bible teaches that! Why do we know the weird stuff they say are wrong? First, let us introduce several concepts. Errors of Interpretation Eisegesis and Exegesis There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret a book. This is not limited to the bible but to any prose or poetry or novel or technical manual. So when God tells the Israelites to observe the Sabbath, you cant just say Ha! Christianity teaches to observe the Sabbath! Christians dont even observe the ten commandments as a set of laws that apply to them. Why then do Christians have to observe the Sabbath? That is interpreting with an agenda. It is putting meaning into the text and not extracting meaning out of the text. You can do this with any book, not just the bible. Confusing Descriptive with Prescriptive passages In any book, there are parts which just tell you what happened and parts which tell you what you should do. Some part which tell a story and some which set principles and guidelines. If you confuse the two, you would get really weird results. Imagine someone reading Moby Dick and then thought the book was teaching that people should hunt whales, and when hunting them should do the same things that the captain does. Or reading Don Quixote and found in him an example on how to approach life? Most people dont do that with most books but why do a lot of other groups try it on the bible? Harmony of Scripture Unlike the Koran, which contain the purported words of Allah where you have conflicting commands and contradictory passages so much so that they have had to develop a doctrine of abrogation. (see my opponents post where he tries to ascribe this concept to the bible) It gets so bad that muslim teachers have to say that later passages of killing infidels abrogate having to make peace with them because you have two contradictory passages which you simply cannot reconcile. In contrast, the bible is one harmonious book from beginning to end. In fact, the central message of the bible is built into both the Old testament and the
New Testament. It is one book. You can randomly tear pages out of the bible and still not lose the concepts of sin, forgiveness, atonement, grace as these are interspersed throughout the bible. The bible does actually make the bible clearer as opposed to other man made books which contain contradicting information. If a purported interpretation contradicts other clear teaching in other parts of the bible, a closer examination of the underlying passage would show no contradiction but only an error in interpretation. Now, let us examine WJs arguments in his constructive. He argues that since the Christian God commits acts of violence, therefore Christianity must promote violence. Not only is the logic wrong but there is actually no proposition. It is written that the Christian God is a man of war (exodus 15:3). God is even portrayed as a leader of armies. It is also written to christians - Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. (Romans 12:19) I do not deny that God sees himself as an avenger and could and would do what we would consider violent acts. This however does not teach that Christians should commit violence. It does not follow. That is not only an error in logic but an error in interpretation. He argues that there is a lot of wars in the Old testament therefore Christians are taught to promote violence. Let me reiterate what i started saying in my introduction. Christianity is not a political group. WJ was actually referring to the Israelites who were also a social culture, a political entity, an earthly nation with borders and armies. Christianity is none of these. Gods treatment or dispensation of them is different from Gods treatment of Christians. The Jews were mandated to conquer Palestine. WJ probably didnt know this which is why he did not jump on it and wrongly interpret it like he does the other scriptures and ascribe the command as being given to Christians. Yes, the Jews were told to go up to Palestine and conquer it. Do we see Christians going up to Palestine to wage war and to conquer it? The evidence is that Christians are not and have not been doing anything of the sort. Why not if God commanded it? It was not commanded to Christians. It was commanded to the Jews. Descriptive passage, not prescriptive. Again, an error in interpretation. If anyone says that Christianity teaches this and that, let us examine the evidence first. Does the persons claims hold merit? Is there evidence that what he is saying is true? Many people have made many claims as to what the bible teaches. Many are easily seen to be wrong as they are simply Errors in Interpretation. Christianity is not about promoting peace or promoting violence. Unlike Islam, as WJ has alluded such acts to Christianity, Christianity does not do such acts as pretending peace when not in a favourable political position or overt aggression when in a position of power. Christianity has no such political ideology. Why? Because unlike Islam, Christianity is not a political movement. Christianity is about forgiveness, about redemption, about God choosing a people for himself. Its scope is personal, its realm is spiritual. So when WJ starts ascribing as warfare the actions of the disciples, of armies, of battle tactics, we have to say, hang on, Christianity isnt a political movement. The kingdom of God cometh not with observation (you cant see it, its not a visible kingdom), its a spiritual one. Before we start accusing people of murder. We would do well first to see if there is motive. Does Christianity need to go on mass killing sprees as WJ suggests to advance its political aims? There is no political motive to speak of. We cant even find the dead bodies WJ alludes to.
Unlike other religions that call on unquestioning belief, Christianity is about believing based on evidence. When Moses was told to go to the Israelites in Egypt, God didnt say, just go, they will believe you. God actually expected people to ask questions. I would advise people when reading WJs claims (and mine), examine the evidence. See if the claims really have basis. If you do this, you will not get hoodwinked by any Muslim or any cult even a cult of Christianity. That is the Berean attitude.
11-12-09, 10:51
#23
Ateo
I was remiss by not complimenting Knightjp immediately for his early and excellent post. Our two debaters are serious, articulate,and are models of good behaviors. I'm very pleased with the progress of this debate. I hope that the Truth is very well served here.
__________________
11-12-09, 10:54
#24
Ateo
We have now reached item 11 of this debate, whereby WhiteJewel will cross-examine Knightjp's constructive statements.
__________________
11-15-09, 01:03
#25
Ateo
Ruling 12. It is noted that WhiteJewel failed to post by the deadline. "Knightjp won by default," is the ruling that some people might have expected. But it is not going to the ruling of this moderator. I don't think Knightjp and even WhiteJewel will be contented to win this debate by a mere default or technicality. They are both self-confident and are proud of the quality of their arguments thus far. They would rather present their sharp rebuttals and enlightening conclusions. The audience likewise expects the debate to continue. The issue needs to be resolved to its logical conclusion, not left hanging due to a mere technicality. The rules serve the greater interests of the debate, not the other way around. The specific rule on deadlines is only to guard againsts willful abandonment and I have considered and will consider valid excuses to serve the greater interest. In my Ruling #5, for example, I have excused Knightjp for also failing to post by the deadline. It is, therefore, the ruling of this moderator to suspend this debate until both debaters become available again. Once WhiteJewel signals his availability, I will consult Knightjp if he still wants to continue. If this debate fails to finish, it should be considered as technically a tie at this stage. I will temporarily close both threads to observe the suspension of this debate. I thank the debaters for their understanding. And my apologies to the audience for the inconvenience of the suspension.
__________________
11-20-09, 12:05
#26
Ateo
Forum Deacon
Filipino Freethinkers Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: New York Posts: 7,471
Quote from: Ateo We have now reached item 11 of this debate, whereby WhiteJewel will cross-examine Knightjp's constructive statements.
The debate that you thought you will not see again is back! Let us see it through the end. We will resume by asking WhiteJewel to post Item #11, cross examination of Knightjp's constructive statement. He has 3 days to make his post from the time of this one.
__________________
11-21-09, 14:05
#27
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 11. Cross-Examination of Negative by Affirmative
In the Name of God Most Gracious Most Merciful.
Peace be unto all. I apologize for the delay of this debate due to the ban given to me by one of my fans. I thank him so passionately for that; its so reasonable indeed. Anyway, well proceed. My opponent argued that my biblical exegesis is erroneous, insinuating that his exegesis is the correct one despite the fact that I cited clear verses from the bible while he didnt quote any, not a single. So, to say that my exegesis is correct and so and sos exegesis is wrong is quite subjective in nature. In fact, I see it to be the opposite when the claimant doesnt have any proof.
Q#1 - The Quran provides clearly the authority as to who should interpret itself (A. An-Nahl: With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect. (44)B.And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal. (59:7). Does your bible provide give any
specific person to interpret for itself, thereby giving us a criterion whether our exegesis is correct or otherwise? Q#2 You believe in the trinity (3 in 1 God), do you agree that the God who ordered the mass murder and genocide in the OT is the very same God which you believe in the NT? Q#3 If you were one of the Israelites in the OT time, would you obey and do those commandments of killing non-combatant women, children, infants, and animals? Q#4 - Our moderator is an atheist, could you explain to us here the reason, humane reason, why non-combatant women, children, infants, and animals should be killed per your Gods order? I did not see it necessary to kill those non-combatant women, children, infants, and animals whether its in the past present or future. We would like to know your rationale. Q#5 What did Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have to say about those mass murder and genocide, are they pros or cons to it? Q#6 Do you believe that the biblical prophecy of the return of Jesus; that he will make his enemies dead bodies his footstool? Q#7 Do you agree that those who dont follow Jesus on that day when he comes back *Muslims, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, ect* should be killed? Q#8 Do you see these words as offensive words; wicked and adulterous generation, You snakes! You blood of vipers, You foolish people, and calling a person dog?? Q#9 What is you exegesis on this verse: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me.Luke 19:27 Q#10 Would you dare to condemn the mass murder and genocide in the OT and the future mass murder when Jesus comes back? I just want everyone to remember what kn1ghtjp wrote in the first paragraph of his negative construct: Christianity is not a teaching that promotes either peace or violence I think we have a clear admission here that Christianity doesnt promote peace so half of my task is done!!! The other half would be known after kn1ghtjp answered my cross exam. Thank you. Peace be unto you all.
11-23-09, 22:01
#28
kn1ghtjp
Ladies and Gentlemen, We see that WJ has a lot of questions. I guess it is understandable that WJ knows very little about Christianity. It would have been nice however if he did a bit more research to further his understanding of the subject so that he would not have had to clarify as much. It also might have made him look a bit more intelligent. I guess that would be a bit difficult or even impossible for him but we do appreciate his putting in the effort to appear so for us. For this we must thank him. Q#1 - The Quran provides clearly the authority as to who should interpret itself ... ... ... Does your bible provide give any specific person to interpret for itself, thereby giving us a criterion whether our exegesis is correct or otherwise? A) No. Unlike the Quran which is so convoluted and unintelligible it cannot be understood by people, the Word of God is produced by a God who is smart enough to make himself known without any interpreter to assist Him. Unlike Islam who needs interpreters to interpret the interpreter and other interpreters to interpret the interpreters of the interpreters, the bible can be understood by its readers with only the same effort it would take to read any other book written by a sane, lucid individual. It already makes sense. What did your god say? mumble mumble something? Q#2 You believe in the trinity (3 in 1 God), do you agree that the God who ordered the mass murder and genocide in the OT is the very same God which you believe in the NT? Yes. But unlike Mohammed, we disagree that it was the same "God" who ordered the mass murders and genocide that Muhammad followed. Q#3 If you were one of the Israelites in the OT time, would you obey and do those commandments of killing non-combatant women, children, infants, and animals? Yes. That is, if i were an Israelite. But i am a Gentile. Unlike Islam though, we would not pretend that it is because we would have been in war and not in peace or anything like that. We would not make excuses for God if He clearly commanded something. If other people take issue, it would be with God. Q#4 - Our moderator is an atheist, could you explain to us here the reason, humane reason, why non-combatant women, children, infants, and animals should be killed per your Gods order? I did not see it necessary to kill those non-combatant women, children, infants, and
animals whether its in the past present or future. We would like to know your rationale. It is irrelevant to the topic but ill humour you. If indeed there is a God, and God gave such commands, it would be reason enough. If there isnt there would not have been that reason to. Logic produces sound and valid arguments if both the proposition and the premises are true. That is why in logic, if pegasi have wings and winged magical creatures can fly, then pegasi can fly. We can both see that the viewpoint is reasonable even though we can disagree on the world-view. But the logic might be too complicated for you. That is why i told you that you still would have to construct the premise that God did tell Christians to kill people which you have failed to do so. If God did tell Christians to kill people, then Christians would and they would believe they should. But God did not, therefore Christians dont. Still complicated? Sorry, i dont think you see the difference between Christians and Muslims there. Let us look at it this way. Unlike your view, if i can say to God that i dont think he should tell people to kill women, children, infants and animals, then it is I who would be God, not him. We both know that you have interpreters who say what Allah says for him. Q#5 What did Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have to say about those mass murder and genocide, are they pros or cons to it? Jesus asked if we think that those people who died of natural calamities were more sinful than those who survived. This addresses the problem of evil. Because evil exists, it is only right that a just and holy God eradicate it. Because God is also patient, he does not. It is only logical and reasonable. Q#6 Do you believe that the biblical prophecy of the return of Jesus; that he will make his enemies dead bodies his footstool? They already are but i dont think you understand the illustration. The prophecy you are talking about has already been fulfilled. Q#7 Do you agree that those who dont follow Jesus on that day when he comes back *Muslims, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, ect* should be killed? No. And they will not be. The millennium kingdom that will be established when Jesus returns is not composed only of Jews. Please do not refer to muslim propaganda websites. The bible can speak for itself. Q#8 Do you see these words as offensive words; wicked and adulterous generation, You snakes! You blood of vipers, You foolish people, and calling a person dog?? And we should be careful to offend, shouldnt we? We should never tell the truth if it offends people, is that your argument? Your face offends me. You know maybe you should remove your face. Lintik at Leche which are in English, Lightning and Milk respectively are offensive to many people. One thing i have discovered is that you cannot please everyone. Trying to stop a drug addict is offensive to them. Atheists are offensive to muslims. The message of the cross is offensive to people. Christianity is a message that offends and yet crosses political, social, cultural barriers. If something is offensive, is it therefore violent? Only in WJs logic. Q#9 What is you exegesis on this verse: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me.Luke 19:27 Its called a story, WJ. It has a moral, which most stories have. It is not
real life. Most people are able to tell the difference. People, let me explain why WJ is so confused. In Islam, people are taught that what the Quran taught people then, it still teaches now. In Christianity, there is historical context and literary context. A story is a story, a command is a command. What also was then in situations then is not necessarily the same situation now. In Islam, there is none of that stuff. They believe that the Quran is the words of Allah who they have to follow however their leader tells to. How they followed it then should be the same way they follow it now. That is why muslims in other countries laugh at muslims in the west and other places who teach that jihad is not about warfare. How it has been is how it should be for muslims. How Muhammad said Allah told muslims to commit violence is the same instructions by Allah to muslims today. WJ disagrees. But then, you have interpreters of interpreters now, dont you WJ? You basically speak for Allah now. Q#10 Would you dare to condemn the mass murder and genocide in the OT and the future mass murder when Jesus comes back? Unlike WJ, i agree with most other muslims that violence is justified when there is a legitimate reason for it. If God says it, it should be followed. Unfortunately for WJ, Christianity is not told to commit mass murder and genocide. He keeps talking about the Jews who were told to conquer Palestine and the future kingdom promised to the Jews who will be reclaiming their land. But we have the PAST, PRESENT, and FUTURE. The past has the jews occupying their birthright. The future has the jews reclaiming their birthright. The Christians are Gods people who have no land to claim or reclaim. They are promised a heavenly kingdom with heavenly rewards. Islam however, does not differentiate between the violence that the Qur'an teaches then, teaches now, or how Muslims should live in the future. Some muslims are just confused about that.
11-24-09, 08:49
#29
Ateo
Ruling 13. Knightjp's post #312 in the Gallery is a violation of Rule #10, prohibiting substantive posting by a debater in the Gallery in the duration of the debate. [1 point] I explained this ruling in this manner at the gallery: http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/sho...&postcount=314 Summary of infraction points Knightjp: 3 Whitejewel: 1
__________________
11-24-09, 09:00
#30
Ateo
Part 3 The debate now enters its final and most exciting part. The debaters have been posting promptly and the debate is in a high-energy mode. This part will cover rebuttals in both propositions. After the rebuttals, the debate closes with the concluding remarks. We start this part with Item #13, whereby Knightjp will post a rebuttal on WhiteJewel's argument. It will be followed by Item #14 with WhiteJewel's rebuttal. Both posts refer ONLY to the first part of the debate; i.e. Islam promotes violence. Knightjp may now proceed with his post.
__________________
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Thread Tools
Display Modes #31
11-26-09, 21:29
kn1ghtjp
Ladies and Gentlemen, You have heard my arguments why it is that Islam promotes violence. Let us now examine WJs excuses on why he says it does not. Firstly WJ says that Islam is a word that is derived from the Arabic word for peace. He then tells us to believe that the religion then produces peace. One, It does not follow. If their Allah commands them to be violent, then submission to Allah would promote violence. Two, the word for the stinging of a snake is also related to the Arabic word for peace. Does this mean according to WJs logic that Islam is related to snakes? It does not. Neither does the word have anything to do with peace. Be very aware of the careful wording that WJ uses. Islam means submission to Allah, nothing more. If it meant peace, then it would have been the same word for peace. It is not. Secondly, and take careful note of the wording. WJ tells us that Islam respects the rights of every human being as well as the rights of plants and animals. Now, what rights would these be? Would it be the basic human rights that we think every person should have? Take a look at this simple list: freedom of expression equality before the law right to participate in culture the right to work the right to education
Now, can a Christian preach Jesus outside of a mosque in Mecca or even Medina? How long do you think he will last? Do you think they will give him the basic human right of freedom of expression? If a woman testifies against a man in sharia law, do you think a womans word is of equal weight as a mans before their law? Do you think a hindu will be able to participate in the culture of an Islam dominated country? How free do you think non-Muslims are in working in Muslim countries? Do they not have to pay the Jizziyah unlike Muslims? Are men and women equal in their right to education? WJ also says Islam respects the rights of plants and animals. What rights would they be? The right to life? The right to exist? Or did he bring it up because the only rights it recognizes for human beings is only the same rights it recognizes for plants and animals? Be wary of his excuses. Thirdly, WJ argues that Islam is not what Islam does but only what it teaches. Then he turns around and says that Islam is "a complete way of life". Let us take for granted then that many muslims have not been doing what they are supposed to be doing. This WJ says explains why there is a disconnect between what Islam does and what it teaches. What does it teach according to WJ? He mentions a couple of injunctions and obligations in Islam but i want you to take note of the special wording involved. without just cause
to maintain peace and order In times of war, soldiers are allowed inherent right of any state to exercise its governmental powers i.e sovereignty against any rebels doesnt want to repent wont surrender the culprits then the Muslims were allowed to retaliate
Now, i want you to notice the subtext (what has not been said). In all these situations, the context that Islam and WJ says is the only situation where you can have peace is that if people submit to Allah. If you become a muslim, then you will have peace. No, there is no compulsion in religion, but you will have peace if you become a muslim. Can i have peace without becoming a muslim? You will only have peace if you submit to Allah, to Islam. And that is the loophole that Muslims resort to whenever they need an excuse for the violence that they promote. They say it is justified and in fact, commanded by their religion. That the Americans initiated war on them which is why the suicide bombers were justified. Let me ask this very obvious and glaring question. Did any muslim turn over Osama bin Laden to the United Nations for his gross and grievous violation of Human rights? The answer is no because muslims think his actions were justified. Finally WJ gives us this excuse: Islam is not what the Arabs or naughty Muslims do. It is what it actually teaches What it actually teaches is that outside Islam, there is no Peace. And that is what Islam gives you. There is no compulsion in religion BUT if you submit to Allah, you will have peace. (read between the lines) In summary, let us see which of WJs excuses actually prove that Islam does not promote violence. 1. Islam is derived from the same word as the word for Peace. Non sequitur. It does not follow that if atypical is derived from a word as another that they mean the same. Typical also derives from the same word as Atypical but they mean totally the opposite. WJ will not dispute this. Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. Peace, peace, but there is no peace. 2. Islam respects the rights of human beings, plants and animals One, respecting the rights of plants and animals does not promote peace. Two, WJ cannot even substantiate that basic human rights are respected in Islam. The evidence is against it. 3. Islam is not what it does but only what it teaches - It teaches violence. Need i say more?
Where is the biggest fallacy of all? That if a religion preaches peace, it does not promote violence. They are not opposites. Islam can preach peace and preach death to the infidels as well. And does. Promoting peace does not exclude Promoting violence. It is not either-or it is thisAND. In fact, i do not argue that Islam does not preach peace. I believe it does. But this reasoning does not mean it does not also promote violence. I know that it does. We have three paltry arguments from WJ why Islam does not promote violence. Do any of them validly support the idea that ISLAM DOES NOT PROMOTE VIOLENCE? NONE AT ALL
12-01-09, 05:11
#32
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 14. Negative Rebuttal: WhiteJewel
In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
Peace be unto all! Kn1ghtjp wrote You have heard my arguments why it is that Islam promotes violence; well, I didnt see/heard any argument at all. What we saw were mere emotional assertions and huge ignorance of kn1ghtjp about Islamic jurisprudence. Firstly, he only got his ideas from anti-Islamic websites which are known for fabricating and distorting true Islamic teachings. This was exposed when I asked kn1ghtjp about the volume number/book/title/page number of the refs which he gave, and we have witnessed that he wasnt able to provide them because they were not available in those websites simply because they were distorted and or fabricated info. This is so shameful indeed. Secondly, he misquotes Quranic verses and thought that they could back his assertions. Unfortunately, his ignorance was once again exposed when I asked him about the Asbabun Nuzul of those verses. What he provided were, as expected, links of websites and copy&paste of his socalled tafseer of Sh. Ibn Katheer and others which he got from an antiIslamic website, but when I asked him to provide the refs, he gave nothing. I knew that he couldnt give any because I know very well the tafaseer or those verses because I have read several times the sahih seerah of the Noble Prophet Muhammad pbuh, and I know and understand from it the circumstances and the reasons, and the purposes why those verses were revealed. So what kn1ghtjp had given us were never argument but mere emotional assertions and ignorance of Islamic Jurisprudence due to hearsay, actually fabricated info. Here is another funny thing from kn1ghtjp; Islam is derived from the stinging of a snake hehehehe so funny. Last time, he was asserting that Islam is derived from hudna and suhl oh boy, as if I am hearing the kangaroo speaking bad words when you pressed a wrong letter for the puzzle hehehe, what kind of apologist is this??? Let me quote my previous answer:
Let me teach him basic concept in Arabic language: Arabic is a very rich language; one root word could form many words out of it, but those words sound the same or bear the root word which they were formed. Example: Islam, salam, salama, silm, ect. I would like to ask my opponent to explain how Islam, hudna, and suhl, relate to each other in terms of their meanings and root word in his rebuttal/s.... I have never heard of any scholar or authentic Islamic books using Islam, hudna and suhl interchangeably. Kn1ghtjp, instead of explaining where did he get his hudna and suhl jokes, he added some more, the stinging of a snake WATTA MAN hehehe Another assertion Islam means submission to Allah, nothing more. Again, which Islamic book did he read that mere assertion; totally weightless. If it meant peace, then it would have been the same word for peace. Ngeeekk!!! If someone is ignorant about a certain language, are we going to blame the language for being misunderstood by that person, or that person for being ignorant of the language?? Kn1ghtjp is really a great comedian. Kn1ghtjp is questioning about rights in Islam. Yes, Islam does protect rights of every person be he a Muslim or not because it would be foolish to compel a person to accept Islam since faith resides in the heart, and no one knows what is in the heart except the that person and God. This is why God commanded us in the Quran 2:556 there shall be no compulsion in religion.... But then he related the issue to freedom of speech in Makkah and Madinah This is total nonsense. Makkah and Madinah are places dedicated for worship. Muslims around the world are overcrowding these places almost everyday of the year 24/7 and most especially during hajj month and Ramadan. The Saudi govt. have made quota for each country worldwide for the number of their pilgrims because if theres no quota they cant be accommodated in those places. This is why we Muslims dont pursue to build masajid inside the Vatican or any place of pilgrimage of any religion because we understand the difficulties and impracticability of it. So it is a system made by the Saudi government in order to facilitate easy and comfortable pilgrimage for the people and NOT by Islam restricting the rights of any non-Muslim. Kn1ghtjp is perhaps not a catholic that is why he is ignorant of it the problem for some ignorant is they dont hesitate arguing something which they dont have any knowledgeHe also questioned the testimony of a woman as compared to a mans. Yes, they are of equal weight see the ruling about Lian where a womans sole testimony could or invalidate the testimony of a man. What kn1ghtjp is trying to point out is about contracts. Yes, Islam advices that in contracts it is better to have two female witnesses in lieu of a man because they are sometimes very irritable, emotional, and tend to be forgetful.
Modern Science has supported this ruling because they found out that women has the so-called hormonal changes esp. related to menstrual cycle, dysmenorrhoea, amenorrhea, childbirth, ect. The wisdom behind it is for the safety of the contract; if one of the two forgets, the other one can remind her, and NOT because they are inferior in the sight of the law. He talks about hindus to participate in the culture of Islam Well, this is another absolutely ignorant assertion. There is NO SUCH THING as culture of Islam. Islam is a way of life, not a group of people, race, or tribe. If a hindu wants to look like an arab, he may as he wishes and I have seen many of them doing it here in KSA and no one forbids them. However, a hindu cant be a Muslim while worshipping his elephant-head idol or any of their idols. Another ignorant assertion Non-Muslims working in Islamic countries to pay Jizziyah. It is clear that kn1ghtjp is blinded by his anti-Islamic websites. Jizziyah can only be levied to a community previously part of a non-Muslim State or empire which wants to be governed by an Islamic Caliphate. It is a symbol or token that that community is no longer supporting its previous government. The Jizziyah is somehow similar to tax but lesser in amount. The Muslims pay higher tax to the government than the non-Muslims paying the Jizziyah. BTW, right to taxation is one of the inherent rights of the state. Kn1ghtjp must have been absent when his prof. was discussing about pol.sci. 101 baka may bayabas sa likod ng building. Kn1ghtjp wants to know what rights does Islam afforded to plants and animals this means he doesnt know it, but ironically he is criticizing it, OH BOY!! Hangaroo!.... Islam forbids the cutting of trees or uprooting grasses or burning them without good purpose because they are not created by men but by God so they should be used wisely and for good purpose. Islam forbids making animals as targets for whatever game. If an animal is slaughtered for consumption purposes, they should be slaughtered with a very sharp knife in order to not make them suffer. Animals used for transporting cargos are not allowed to be overburdened or overloaded; they must be feed properly. A Muslim could be thrown to hell fire for not taking care of his animals or for making them starve to death. The Noble Prophet said Be Merciful to the creatures of the earth if you want mercy from God aw kama qala Rasulillah s.a.w. He questioned these phrases of mine: without just cause ect,ect. I dont need to repeat my answer here. What he did is cut&paste my words and then completely ignored my explanations. Oh Boy!!! He asked Can i have peace without becoming a Muslim? My answer is
yes and no. Yes depending on what you do as a human being; if you do good and live with good people then youll have peace in this world if God wills. No as a creature of God because you worship a false deity who never claimed to be God. If you dont stop that then youll have no peace in the hereafter because God will punish you for that inshallah. Typical & atypical vs. Islam, silm, salam & salama He is comparing apples and oranges so to speak; English is not the same as Arabic, and typical & atypical are antonyms while Islam, silm, salam, and salama are not; what kind of analogy is this??? WATTA JOKE!
Bin Laden??? Who and where Bin Laden is, I dont know. I dont judge people based on what I see on TV. Whoever did and will do killing of innocent people, I condemn him be he a Muslim or not; Islam strongly condemns it. Who knows, Bin Laden and George Bush and CIA are but one group.
Peace!
12-01-09, 23:06
#33
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 15. Affirmative Rebuttal: Whitejewel
In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful Peace be unto all. Ladies and gents, Kn1ghtjp accused me of making erroneous exegesis about his violent bible. I asked him whether he has any basis for his accusation because with regards to the Quran, it provides rules of interpreting it and whose interpretation is to be followed and I gave him two verses from the Quran as proof. You know what, his answer is NO. Therefore he has no basis for his accusation; its a mere assertion, baseless, subjective, and in a debate of this nature, it is weightless and nonsense. I could make the same accusation against him too. He confidently confirmed that the God who ordered the mass murder and
genocide in the OT is the very same God of the NT. Wow!!! It therefore means that my argument is 100% true; it was Jesus who ordered those extremely horrible, merciless, violent and satanic mass murder and genocide in the OT. What happened was when this extremely horrible, merciless, violent god was trapped in a human body and is overpowered by a pagan roman government, he temporarily advocate patience to his disciples because they were afraid and cant fight due to their small number. However, his extremely horrible, merciless, violent character cant be hidden; he called people with foul words such as vipers, dogs, adulterous, snake, etc. As a result he was killed by them, oh poor deity. But when he comes back, he will kill the atheists, Muslims and all other people who wont follow him and make their bodies his footstool because by that time, according to Christian faith, the power is with him. See, kn1ghtjp has proven that my contention/argument that Christianity does promote violence is 100% correct. He said that if he was one of the people of the OT, he would obey the order of his extremely horrible, merciless, violent god; killing noncombatant women, children, infants, and animals. This shows that kn1ghtjp is an extremely dangerous and violent person. Changing his category as an Israelite into a gentile, doesnt and cant change his being as person. His nature as a violent person is really what he is, and not because he is called such and such. Therefore, we can confidently conclude based on kn1ghtjps confession that Christianity, as well as kn1ghtjp as a Christian, is a violent and dangerous religion. So we have here a violent religion and a violent follower, BRAVO!!! BTW, it was his extremely horrible, merciless, violent and tribal god was the one who categorized him as a gentile, which means to the Jews as filthy person/people. This is why Jesus called them as dogs and pigs; what a bad category!!! And you know what; the same people who are called dogs and pig are eating dogs and pigs nowadays. We have here dogs and pigs eating dogs and pigs, and this makes them so violent. You are what you eat according to the nutritionists. I asked him to give the rationale, humane, for those mass murders and genocide in the OT and the genocide to be when Jesus comes back he said, well, God wills it therefore it must be alright the problem is it is never alright at all. He is just showing that the biblical god is a fake god because God is just and good. Murdering innocent women, children, infants and cattle is not pleasing to a true God at all. He further said that logic is undependable and he gave this example which he called logic That is why in logic, if pegasi have wings and winged magical creatures can fly, then pegasi can fly. Who calls this as logic? Not the most idiot person would consider it as logic because its a clear fallacy. Kn1ghtjp, if you dont know what kind of fallacy is that, ask me, i will tell you. Lolzz I asked him about Jesus and Holy Spirits reaction about those mass murders and genocide committed by the father Watta shock!!! He gave me an extremely out of the blue answer. He evaded answering the question, haha ilag ka nalang dong, mabigat yan.
He said that the prophecy on Jesus coming and murdering the nonChristians has already been fulfilled; WATTA SHOCK!!! Where did he get that idea??? When Jesus was here, he was the one murdered by his enemies according to the bible, and not Jesus murdering them. The problem with some of our Christian friends is that they dont read the bible with comprehension, but full of emotion and ecstasy, that is why they cant see the truth. Let me teach kn1ghtjp something about his bible: That prophecy is yet to come according to your bible. There is a big war called Armageddon by some of your scholars. That war will happen when Jesus comes back and he will win against his enemies. Jesus hasnt come back yet therefore that prophecy hasnt fulfilled yet.Thats it kn1ghtjp! He said That is why i told you that you still would have to construct the premise that God did tell Christians to kill people which you have failed to do so. Well, I dont know if he is dizzy because Ive been quoting this verse many times But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27 Isnt his god saying that??? Didnt kn1ghtjp admit that the God of the OT is the very same God in the NT?? Mukhang hilong-hilo na yata itong kaibigan natin hehehe Kn1ghtjp tried to justify that foul words are okay such as wicked and adulterous generation, You snakes! You blood of vipers, You foolish people, and calling a person a dog because you cant please anyone anyway. What kind of religious principle is this?? Its like saying its okay to kill the non-Christians, they are not among us anyway. What do you call a person who doesnt consider calling other people with foul words to be bad and offensive; isnt that person an advocate of violence??? BTW, there is a strawman here; knightjp said that Atheists are offensive to muslims NOT AT ALL. The reason why we engage in arguments with them is to offer them the way to God not thru blind faith but by logic/reason because we love them and we dont want them to be thrown to hell. Most of the atheists are from Christian families. They have understood that Christianity doesnt have anything to offer but hypocrisy * 10% collection from the church members* and blind faith. In Islam we assure them that there is no such kind of hypocrisy and we believe thru reasons. I asked his exegesis on But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luke 19:27 He merely said that its just a story. Oh boy, dont mind it, its just a mere story. Then he began to sidetrack and jumped up to Islam while the topic at hand is only about Christianity. When he asked me about Islam, I didnt jump up to Christianity because the topic at hand is about Islam. Islam can stand and answer any question without banging Christianity because it is a very logical and practical religion. However, kn1ghtjp shows that Christianity is the exact opposite well, I thank him for that !!! I asked him Would you dare to condemn the mass murder and genocide in the OT and the future mass murder when Jesus comes back? No clear answer but based on his statements he condones it because it is Gods order If God says it, it should be followed.
See, what do you call a person who condones mass murders and genocide, would you call him a peaceful person??? I dont think so! This kind of person should not be given a chance to be a leader in the society because it would be as if we are putting our heads between the incisors teeth of a wild alligator. He doesnt care about mass murders and genocide of innocent women, children, infants and cattle because he blindly believes that a good God said it so, ewww! He said Unlike WJ, i agree with most other muslims that violence is justified when there is a legitimate reason for it". This is what I have been saying in my negative stand in part 1 of this debate, but he criticized it and he even quoted those phrases: without just cause to maintain peace and order In times of war, soldiers are allowed inherent right of any state to exercise its governmental powers i.e sovereignty against any rebels etc, ect. But now, he agreed with what I said but accused me of being in the opposite side, hehehe WATTA JOKE!!! Thank you very much ladies and gents! Peace be unto all!!!
12-02-09, 14:46
#34
Ateo
Very engrossing and captivating exchange... I urge our readers to read the posts very carefully. I enjoyed them and learned from them. We just need now Knightjp's last rebuttal and then we do the conclusions! This debate is ending, my friends. Listen up and enjoy while it lasts :)
__________________
FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646
Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers
12-05-09, 15:30
#35
kn1ghtjp
Ladies and Gentlemen, Let us examine WJs reaffirmation of his reasoning. 1) Because God exercises his judgment over his creation, he is violent. 2) Since Jesus is God and exercises his judgment over his creation, he is violent. 3) Since Jesus is violent, Christianity must be violent. 4) Since Christianity is violent, Kn1ghtjp is violent. Previously, I have introduced to you Errors in Interpretation. At this point, I would like to introduce you to Errors in Reasoning. Here in BARM, what we try very much to do is equip people with the tools of reason they need to determine what is true and what is reasonable. Something may not be reasonable just because someone claims it to be. Something may not be true just because someone claims it to be. Check the facts, check the reasoning. In interpretation, you have to know how to properly interpret the facts. In analysis and synthesis, you have to know how to properly break down and put together the facts. Analysis is where we break down an intellectual whole into parts or components. Synthesis, the opposite procedure, is one which combines several elements in order to form a coherent idea or system. Now, what happens when reasoning is not done properly? Then you get errors in logic. Logical fallacies are those by which we easily recognize patterns of faulty reasoning. Among these are the Argumentum ad Hominem, Appeal to Ridicule, Misleading Vividness, Style over Substance, and others. What I would like to demonstrate, are two fallacies. One is the fallacy of Division, the other is the Fallacy of Composition. Let us look at examples for both. But first, let us examine the nature of violence. Violence is the enforcement of ones will on another compelling action or inaction that is contrary to the desires of one to whom the violence is effected. Thus, in law for example where an executioner kills a man as mandated by the state, there is violence. When police officers keep the peace during a riot or rally, there is violence commited by the police. In fact, any government who wishes to regulate nonmilitary violence has to promote the use of violence through legal systems governing both the governed and those doing the governing. Thus we condone violence and even see it necessary to maintain the status quo and enforce laws. (Technically, this reasoning alone makes WJ lose the debate since Islam cannot deny the promotion and the use of violence to further its aims and maintain its values in the society but that is not what we argue rather that the violence is inherent because Islam is violent whereas Christianity has no such governmental aims. Thus even if violence that results in homicide can be classified into criminal homicide and justifiable homicide [e.g. self defence, national security.], it is still violence and Islam promoting self defence still promotes violence. )
Now, let us address WJ arguments. 1) God commits violence to ensure the peace of Israel therefore he is violent When an executioner kills a man according to the law, we do not consider him violent. When a man, a farmer clears the pests in his field by trapping them or killing them be they bunny rabbits who eat his crops or foxes who though they chase after the rabbits also kill his chickens, we do not consider him a violent man. This is a fallacy of composition. Though violence is a component of what we would consider a violent man, it is not the only component. There can be people who commit violence but are not violent men. The judges who make rulings on criminals enforces their will on the criminals who will not be able to follow what they desire. It is violence but they are not necessarily violent men. The Police who commit violence by enforcing the law or what was ordered them are not necessarily violent men. One part, violence does not compose a violent man. That is a fallacy of composition. 2) Jesus is God therefore Jesus is violent. - Here is where WJ is confused about logic. He says that the conclusion Pegasi can fly can never be true even given a proposition and premises that support the conclusion. Here, even I would accept that Jesus would be violent if God were violent since I do accept that Jesus is God. However, is it true that God is violent? Here is where the argument fails not because of the validity of the argument but the soundness of it. Yes, the argument is valid but it is not sound because one of the premises is not true. 3) Jesus is violent therefore Christianity is violent. Again we have another fallacy. It is again a fallacy of composition. The idea presented is that Jesus is part of the Christian narrative therefore any characteristic that Jesus has would be a characteristic of Christianity. Can everybody see the invalidity of the argument? If Jesus heals the sick, does it follow that Christianity heals the sick? If Jesus feeds 5 million people, does it follow that Christianity feeds the whole world? If Jesus is God as WJ agrees, does it follow that Christians are Gods? An error of composition. A fallacy of logic. 4) Christianity is violent therefore Kn1ghtjp is violent. This time, I would introduce you to the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division is committed when one reasons that if something is true of a thing, then it is also true for all or some of its parts. Since Kn1ghtJP is a part of Christianity, therefore Kn1ghtJP has the characteristics of Christianity that is what WJ is trying to argue. Christianity is kind to muslims. Kn1ghtjp is a Christian. _____ is kind to muslims? Not necessarily. *wink* Here we see the kind of reasoning that WJ brings us. Things are not logical just because WJ says they are. Things are not true just because WJ says it is. (see Acts 10:11). Consider his arguments refuted. (And it is not necessarily true because i said it is. Check for yourself.) Secondly, I would like to introduce you to another fallacy of logic. Appeal to Ridicule is another oft-used debating tactic used by amateur debaters who cannot argue by addressing the argument but only by making the argument appear ridiculous. (Did you see the fallacy in the definition?) This type of fallacy, also called the horse laugh, does not really reason against the argument but often dismisses it or even creates a straw man argument
which is not the same as the original argument itself. Some examples? Let us look at WJs last post. See if you can find the following words and phrases: "Lolzz
haha ilag ka nalang dong, mabigat yan "Watta shock!!! Mukhang hilong-hilo na yata itong kaibigan natin hehehe (also an ad hominem)
God said it so, ewww!

hehehe WATTA JOKE!!!
Now, let me ask the audience. In each of these instances, did WJ address the arguments presented? Or did he just dismiss the arguments? Did he give a reasoned response or did he just laugh the arguments away? Such arguments are not valid and as textual verbiage goes, they are garbage. As rebuttals go, such would already be sufficient to destroy the arguments presented by WJ. But i would like to address in the limited space i have left insinuations that WJ has raised regarding the justness of the God of Israel, Abraham, and Moishe in commanding Israel to slaughter the Canaanites. This indeed is a hard and difficult question but it does not lack an answer. To understand the issue, it would first be useful to understand the Christian Worldview. 1) As creator and ruler and God, YWVH has the right of ownership over all territories, people and creation. This means He is free to do whatever he wishes on whatever and wherever He wishes. Saying he does not have the right to do certain things gives the onus, the burden of proof to the one who says God does not. 2) God is Judge. God is just and righteous. It is quite reasonable to ask whether God was just and righteous in doing certain things. From a christian world view, the question does not make sense because when you think about it, the question does not have legitimacy. The question presupposes that we are the "judge" and that God answers to us. This then makes us God and the other person the one to conform to our personal sense of fairness and justice. Morality is then relegated to personal taste. 3) Canaanites are not innocent. It is an oversimplification to say that God wanted to kick them out because they were occupying space for God's favourites. the Canaanites were not altogether "innocent". This above would be an interesting topic for discussion but is something that is not necessarily relevant to this debate. We might start on a discussion of Theodicy in one of the forums. Thank you sirs for your time.
12-09-09, 04:07
#36
kn1ghtjp
Thinker Christian brethren Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,830 Conclusion
Ladies and Gentlemen, Let us see what we have learned thus far. In this debate, I have discovered something very interesting. WJs reasons for the violence in Islam are no different from the terrorist bombers. They are the same in that they both think it is justified. Osama bin Laden thinks his actions are justified. WJ says that certain acts of violence are justified. They dont see it as violence. They see those actions as justified. WJ even talks about obligations in Islam. These are things you are supposed to do when you encounter certain conditions mentioned in the Quran. This is a real eye opener, folks. It could be that these we call terrorists are not really violent people. That they were not born violent. Weve studied their histories after theyve done what they did and we see that these people were not what we would stereotype as psychopaths. They were schooled, intelligent, extremely religious, and quite knowledgeable about the Quran. Weve struggled to understand them. Where does the violence come from? Ive asked WJ, Can you have peace without Islam? He struggled for an answer. The reason is simple. Islam is Peace as he claims. However, if you can have peace without Islam, then why is Islam necessary? If there can be peace without Islam, why would we still need Islam? If i can have peace without Islam, why on earth would i need Islam? Would the muslims let me have peace without Islam? They would call me an infidel and then terrorize me. Why would they do that? They say they are reasonable people, educated people, religious people. Where does the violence come from? In my constructive, i gave several points demonstrating the violence in Islam. WJ has not denied that there is violence, he cannot. He has not been able to disprove any of the points in the constructive. The first that i raised is the history if its founder. There is no denying that Muhammad was a reasonable man, a learned man. In fact, there were many things that Christians would like about him. He taught that there is one God and taught patiently for many years the one God. Yet there is also no denying that he was a megalomaniacal warlord who when he managed to get hold of an army went on a violent rampage conquering nations and started a killing spree that was only halted by the late intervention of Europe after all the atrocities have been done. Where did the violence come from? Ive also given the example of predominantly muslim countries. As WJ has said, these people were not much different from people from anywhere else. They were born with the same desires as us, they wanted to live well, get good education, get a good job and have a good life. Yet there is that statistic which WJ did not and cannot refute that these countries had a more violent history and more instances of violence than non-muslim counterparts. Where does the violence come from? Islam has this teaching. Either you are for Islam (Dar Al Islam) or against it (Dar Al Harb). Either you are of the House of Islam or you are in the House of War. Certain actions are obligated to people who are muslim. Certain actions are obligated to people who are not muslim. Do muslims necessarily want to do these obligated things? There are people who are not born violent in Islam. There are people who want to live a quiet life, a good life. Just like everyone else in the world. Yet we ask, where does the
violence come from? Why is there violence? Because Islam teaches it.
In our second debate topic, we ask, Does Christianity promote violence? WJ obviously wanted this topic so that he can use it as a tu quoque argument. A you too argument that would say that hey, you promote violence too! That means were still ok. One, this is a fallacy of logic. Second, WJs claims on Christianity, that it pretends peace like Muhammad when he wasnt in a position of power or that it oppresses people like Muhammad when he managed to get the upper hand, does not stick on Christianity. There is no evidence for it. It is an accusation that has no merit because there is no evidence. Belief must be based on evidence. One of the arguments that were raised against Christianity was that Israel killed infants during their wars. It does not follow that Christians are supposed to kill infants in wars. Another argument that was raised was that Jesus spoke badly of other people. Id have to ask, Wasnt what he said the truth?. WJ is under the mistaken notion that you have to either placate people by deceiving them for you to remain peacable wth them until you are in a position of power that you dont need to do that anymore or to oppress people so that they try to remain peacable with you because they are afraid of you. This is Islam, folks, not Christianity. The truth hurts, and often offends but it sets people free. In his constructive, WJ says that Christianity only seems peace loving because they are not yet in power. He is proposing that Christians *MIGHT* become violent if Christians were in power. Yes, i agree, Christianity seems peace loving. It is. That Christians MIGHT become violent therefore it IS violent? That seems like poor reasoning to me. Belief must be based on EVIDENCE and NOT possibility or conjecture. Does Christianity teach violence? There is no evidence for it.
12-09-09, 16:09
#37
WhiteJewel
Ask Those Who Know For The Things Which You Dont Know Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philippines Posts: 5,929 Conclusion
In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
Hello everyone, especially to our very good Moderator Ateo. I really appreciate his effort in mediating us and for being impartial to both of us
in his rulings. May God guide him and his family. The debate has finally come to its end. Christians and Muslim observers have their own biases in judging as to who really has the strong argument and the evidences/proof. What I would like to say to all of you is that in a debate of this kind, you should not be blinded by those biases; put yourselves in a neutral ground for a while and then judge intelligently. If you do that, it would not be difficult to arrive in a correct judgment. I feel that I dont need to make a conclusion for this debate because it is so obvious that kn1ghtjp has miserably lost in this debate. I am very sorry for him, but I have an obligation to do as a debater. Kn1ghtjps character in this debate: 1. He cant post his replies on time without any reason, in fact he was given 2 infraction points for that violation. 2. Most of his replies were also very late to the extent that I would think that he would receive another infraction points again. 3. Most of his attacks against Islam are based on hearsay* from websites; cut&paste despite the rule* 4. The quotations from the Quran as evidence for his arguments are all based on ignorance and poor understanding/knowledge about Islamic jurisprudence. This is evident from his replies to my questions during the cross-exam. When I asked him about the asbabun-nuzul, he did not and could not provide any. He said that Im trying to waste his time this shows to all Muslims who knows the basic about the rules of tafseer that kn1ghtjp is extremely or absolutely ignorant about it because it is an essential element in making exegesis for the Quran. The Quran was not revealed at once but gradually. Passages were revealed in different circumstances either answering a specific question, or giving an instruction, or giving information about the past or future, and ect. Say for example Quran Sura 9:29-31 which he ignorantly quoted. He thought that it is a commandment for all Muslims today to kill the nonMuslims which isabsolutely WRONG. It was a commandment for the Muslims during the Prophets time when their brother Muslim who was sent as an ambassador to the Romans was killed without reason. It is what we know today as declaration of war (when an ambassador of a state is killed by an officer of another state and the government of that state wont give the appropriate action for the killer) I advice kn1ghtjp to study pol.sci. 101 for this. 5. Muslims are prohibited to kill anyone without just cause, and it is not for any Muslim to do it but the government as have explained in my negative construct. So, ignorance, ignorance, and ignorance, what good stuff could we possibly expect?? Prophet Muhammad said "The cure for ignorance is to ask." 6. He was offended with my exclamatory reactions with his shocking answers and he considered it as an ad hom. It is really ridiculous because he was the one who accused me of making taqqiyyah negatively without
any proof. But when expressed my feeling about his shocking and erroneous answers, he got offended. Look whos talking so to speak. 7. When kn1ghtjp can't find mistake in my rebuttals, he attacked STRAWMAN when he said that I said these nonsense; Jesus is God therefore Jesus is violent I never said it. He is a liar. What is said is that since he admitted that Jesus is the very same God in the OT and he was the one who ordered those mass murder and genocide, and that he said foul words to people, and would kill the nonChristians when he comes back, then I would say that it is indeed violent. Christianity is violent therefore Kn1ghtjp is violent. This is another big LIE. I didnt make such nonsense statement. What is said after asking him whether he would obey those orders for mass murder and genocide if he happens to be one of the Israelites in the OT, and he boldly said YES. I also asked him to give the rationale of doing those horrible crimes, he merely said, Well, its Gods order so it must be followed. This is the reason why I considered him as a violent person, not merely because Christianity is violent. His nature as a human being is violent and his name as a gentile cant and doesnt change his nature. If he said that he condemns those genocide, then I would say that he is a peaceful person; but what would you call a person who condones killing of innocent women, children, and infants, would you call him a peaceful person or a murderer??? He said that it is okay to speak bad and horrible words to the people because you cant please them anyway. Well, in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad said ...if you cant speak anything good, then keep silent that is the correct and peaceful teaching. Calling people as snakes, dogs, and pigs is surely not good at all and it would cause violence. Try to do it with your drunkard neighbour now, and see if he would be happy. He said Islam has this teaching. Either you are for Islam (Dar Al Islam) or against it (Dar Al Harb) Its another BIG,BIG, LIE. There is no such thing as that in Islam. In fact I repeatedly cited the freedom of religion in the Quran 2:226 (there shall be no compulsion in religion). I have the proof while he doesnt, so whos telling the truth then?? I would say, Im telling the truth because I have the proof from the Quran, and since he hasnt any, then it is fair to say that he is a LIAR. He said that God is the ruler. He is insinuating that whatever is written in the bible, even it is extremely violent, it must be followed because it is Gods order. The question is HOW WOULD IT ANY DIFFERENT TO THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS AND TERRORISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT GOD ORDERED THEM TO DO SUCH HORRIBLE CRIMES??? With this kind of reasoning, I would say that Kn1ghtjp and those terrorists and suicide bombers who killed innocent people are but in one perfect category: VIOLENT PEOPLE!!! Kn1ghtjp is also noted for his ignorance about his own bible I asked him to explain how and why did he say that the prophecy in Luke 19:27 has already been fulfilled. Did you see any answer to it? NO!!! So you see, he is indeed ignorant about his own bible because that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled according to the bible. In fact, it was written after Jesus has ascended to heaven because the NT was not written during Jesus time and Luke was not one of his disciples. So how would you write a prophecy for something when it has already been fulfilled in the first place? Where is the logic kn1ghtjp???
I would like to thank kn1ghtjp for supporting my view/argument about taking a life of somebody with just cause, that this is not a promotion of violence. In his conclusion, kn1ghtjp said When an executioner kills a man according to the law, we do not consider him violent Yes, I agree, and this is what I have been saying since the beginning Thank you very much! But if someone kills innocent women, children and infants, then no sane person would consider it good and just, except kn1ghtjp because he is a violent person. We will hope and pray that God will guide kn1ghtjp to the truth and remove his devilish emotion that blinded him to the truth, otherwise be careful of him, he could killed you anytime esp. when he keeps on reading his violent bible. Thank you very much folks, and I hope that you enjoyed this debate. As for me, I was excited in the beginning but I felt so bored starting a week after due to, well, you know how much time we wait before kn1ghtjp could post his replies poor replies. Thank you again to ateo, and to the BARM admin and members as well. May God guide us all, ameen!!! Assalamu alaikum (peace be unto you)
WhiteJewel
12-15-09, 13:02
#38

Islam Vs Christianity - Violence or Peace Debate

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Islam Vs Christianity - Violence or Peace Debate

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WhiteJewel Is AbuJaiyana (http://www.facebook.

The Public Square > GENERAL CATEGORY > One On One

***Knightjp vs. WhiteJewel: Religious Violence Debate - exclusive

Last edited by Ateo; 10-27-09 at 10:47.

Evidence of its Founder Evidence of History Evidence of its Teachings

Last edited by Ateo; 11-01-09 at 03:28.

The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir

The Tafsir of Jalalayn

In the name of God Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Last edited by Ateo; 11-02-09 at 13:44.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious Most Merciful

Now, ladies and gents;

The Public Square > GENERAL CATEGORY > One On One

***Knightjp vs. WhiteJewel: Religious Violence Debate - exclusive

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Display Modes #16

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

In the Name of God Most Gracious Most Merciful.

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

The Public Square > GENERAL CATEGORY > One On One

***Knightjp vs. WhiteJewel: Religious Violence Debate - exclusive

Display Modes #31

In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

FB site of RH supporters: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-SUPP...L/123687403646

Full text of the bill: http://rhbill.org/about/rh-bill-text/ Filipino Freethinkers

God said it so, ewww!

In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen