Does Islam Promote Violence? [Vince Noir vs Motiv-8] Commentary Thread

[Haakon]

As an opening argument, it's quite poor. The entire matter of lashing/stoning adultery is a subject of law enforcement, the legitimacy of Islam's religious law makers and executors, not promotion of violence.

Telling a village mob its ok to stone people to death is not promotion of violence?

[Vince Noir]

As an opening argument, it's quite poor. The entire matter of lashing/stoning adultery is a subject of law enforcement, the legitimacy of Islam's religious law makers and executors, not promotion of violence.

Comments such as those are completely unhelpful in debate. Rather than just stating it is a weak argument can you actually prove it. Regardless of any reason you give/can give - Muhammed openly promotes violence.

At Rome,

24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment

This verse from chapter 24 of the Qu'ran is openly advocating a violent act.

Furthermore I also belive this argument to be the weakest, that is why it is the first I used. Follow the debate and you shall see further arguments presented.

[Sher Khan]

Telling a village mob its ok to stone people to death is not promotion of violence?

It never mentions vigilantism.

Comments such as those are completely unhelpful in debate. Rather than just stating it is a weak argument can you actually prove it. Regardless of any reason you give/can give - Muhammed openly promotes violence.

Furthermore I also belive this argument to be the weakest, that is why it is the first I used. Follow the debate and you shall see further arguments presented.

This is not the debate thread, but the commentary thread, you see.

It is poor for several reasons:

1) You skipped altogether the necessary definitions. What is defined as Islam, promotion, violence? Without any sort of teleological basis, the debate will founder on semantics.

2) You've opened with a minor point that is close to being off-topic altogether. Your opening argument is second in importance only to your closing, and you disrespect both your opponent and your audience by placing your worst foot forward.

3) It is not your own argument, but someone else's. This should be [Vince Noir vs Motiv-8], not [James Arlandson, Answering-Islam.org vs Motive-8].

[Haakon]

It never mentions vigilantism.

It's not vigilantism when its good divine law.

[Sher Khan]

It's not vigilantism when its good divine law.

A mob is not the law.

[motiv-8]

It's not vigilantism when its good divine law.

Have you even read the debate?

[Viking Prince]

Religion is a set of beliefs. To suggest that any religion promotes violence based upon stories and writings of centuries ago without tieing this into the speech of the religious leaders today is not even a debate point. Where is the tie in to actions of the believers today? This seems to be a reaction to violent people who happen to hold a certain religious belief and not a true debate on the religion itself. Why not debate that Jewish traditions promote violence? Or Hindu temple activities promote violence?

The argument fails at this point. I will wait to see developments, but I am not confident.

[Vince Noir]

It is your point that I do not understand. I do not follow your logic. Religious leaders today have nothing to do with this debate. Violence prevails throughout multiple Sura's in the Qur'an. This doctrine is fundamental to all Muslims today. My point completely and utterly succeeds and in future can people please try and refute this intellectually rather than making an irrelavent comparison.

Whether the Qur'an was written in 627 or 5 months ago. The fact is that it promotes violence. Muslims adhere to the Qur'an. It is their only source of objective doctrine. It is everything.

I do not undertand the point of your recommendations to discuss Judaism. This debate revolves around Islam.

Please, explain your comment.

[Viking Prince]

Documents of the past cannot in and of themselves be proof of promotion of violence. It is the actions and activities of today that must be the judge of such promotion. This means the religious leadership can and must be tied to such a debate.

The Qur'an is both a document of history of the beginnings of the religion (historic struggle) as well as a document of how to live one's life. The religious leaders today must use the whole of the document in its teachings and promotion of belief. To judge promotion of violence must then be a focus on the leadership today and not the document itself.

A debate of whether Christianity promotes violence by only debating the missionary spirit of priests leaving Europe to convert the world in the 16th century would be just as flawed.

[Vince Noir]

Documents of the past cannot in and of themselves be proof of promotion of violence. It is the actions and activities of today that must be the judge of such promotion. This means the religious leadership can and must be tied to such a debate.

No, the Qur'an was and is and always will be the sole document of Muslim faith. From early age until death it beside a Muslims bed and inside a Muslims heart.

If we were to argue what your are suggesting it would be a never ending discussion of opinion, one of "this extremist said that....this apologist said this".

I look to the source. The Qur'an is the same today and as it was long ago, and its principles are, if not more, emphatically adhered to.

[Viking Prince]

No, the Qur'an was and is and always will be the sole document of Muslim faith. From early age until death it beside a Muslims bed and inside a Muslims heart.

If we were to argue what your are suggesting it would be a never ending discussion of opinion, one of "this extremist said that....this apologist said this".

I look to the source. The Qur'an is the same today and as it was long ago, and its principles are, if not more, emphatically adhered to.

Bolded is why the debate fails, your attempt to circumvent this not withstanding.

What is or is not included in a religion's holy books is only important with the added provision of interpretation of the meaning of the words. You are debating promotion and thus you are debating interpretation. I cannot see how this is possible without also looking to the leadership who are the current scholars and thus the current ones most knowledgeable to discuss and explain the meaning of the words.

[Yosemite]

No, the Qur'an was and is and always will be the sole document of Muslim faith. From early age until death it beside a Muslims bed and inside a Muslims heart.

If we were to argue what your are suggesting it would be a never ending discussion of opinion, one of "this extremist said that....this apologist said this".

I look to the source. The Qur'an is the same today and as it was long ago, and its principles are, if not more, emphatically adhered to.

the probleme is that most of the sharia law comes from hadiths

and what most muslim read and follow today are hadiths

there was this muslim at school, for four years i was in his class

he was mostly talking of islam based off hadiths, not the quran

[seal]

Documents of the past cannot in and of themselves be proof of promotion of violence. It is the actions and activities of today that must be the judge of such promotion. This means the religious leadership can and must be tied to such a debate.

The Qur'an is both a document of history of the beginnings of the religion (historic struggle) as well as a document of how to live one's life. The religious leaders today must use the whole of the document in its teachings and promotion of belief. To judge promotion of violence must then be a focus on the leadership today and not the document itself.

A debate of whether Christianity promotes violence by only debating the missionary spirit of priests leaving Europe to convert the world in the 16th century would be just as flawed.

I would concur, but I submit that one most also show that a religion promotes violence from the origins of the faith to the current leadership in order to demonstrate a pattern of violence. In my mind this is where the debate fails, because one can ignore any time period that falls outside of their argument. Of course this ignores the basic inflamatory tone of the debate, which, if not precludes, seriously hampers logical thought.

[Vince Noir]

I would concur, but I submit that one most also show that a religion promotes violence from the origins of the faith to the current leadership in order to demonstrate a pattern of violence. In my mind this is where the debate fails, because one can ignore any time period that falls outside of their argument. Of course this ignores the basic inflamatory tone of the debate, which, if not precludes, seriously hampers logical thought.

No time period falls outside this argument. We are discussing the Qur'an. Doctrine...what Muhammed said and did, and how this has left the door wide open to interpretations of violence throughout the world. Please explain how anything fails.

The tone sounds inflamatory because the nature of the debate is as such. I am attacking an religion based on the practising of morally questionable acts. I will happily debate you in this thread at the same time. Please, make your case.

[seal]

No time period falls outside this argument. We are discussing the Qur'an. Doctrine...what Muhammed said and did, and how this has left the door wide open to interpretations of violence throughout the world. Please explain how anything fails.

The tone sounds inflamatory because the nature of the debate is as such. I am attacking an religion based on the practising of morally questionable acts. I will happily debate you in this thread at the same time. Please, make your case.

Is it possible to take what Mohammed did or did not do, or say or did not say, out of context? Is it possible that even his contemporaries would do so for immediate political benefit? What is your definition of morally questionable? Apparently stoning qualifies, but what about beatings, hangings, capital punishment in general, or even simple killing of a person? What is the difference between communal justice systems and national justice systems? If a state recognizes the legitimacy of local laws, can punishments be deemed morally questionable? Can you prove that from the day Mohammed received his calling to today that the faith has inspired violence? Can it be shown that other religions, if not all, have promoted violence from time to time? If other faiths have done so, could it be logically induced that they to have promoted violence? Is religion, more than other social ideals like nationality or famly, more prone to violence?

The failure as I see it, is that it would require a scholarly treatise to adequately address these issues. Although I have not written on the subject myself, I would suspect that it would be found that the faith, in and of itself, does not promote violence, but rather individual subscribers of the faith, who may be guilty of promoting violence, whatever that means.

That being said, my advice would be to define certain broad categories within this debate to your benefit. If you can get you opponent to agree to those things, then you have a significant advantage. The art of debate is much like chess, you must anticipate your opponent's arguments. The beauty, however, is that you can define the rules of the game as you go along, perhaps to your advantage.

[seal]

I would concur, but I submit that one most also show that a religion promotes violence from the origins of the faith to the current leadership in order to demonstrate a pattern of violence. In my mind this is where the debate fails, because one can ignore any time period that falls outside of their argument. Of course this ignores the basic inflamatory tone of the debate, which, if not precludes, seriously hampers logical thought.

In main thread by Vince Noir:

Note: People who are private messaging me. Please read the OP in red. I'm not anti-anybody. I’m taking part in this for debate.:original:

Doesn't this prove my point about the feasibility of this debate? You may be able to do this in your living room, but in a public forum? I don't know. The emotion of the people can not be underestimated. Hence the reason for the decline in rhetoric and the rise of the media byte.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Both sides have wisdom and honor beyond merit.

[Vince Noir]

No there is no interpretation. It is fact. What I am putting forth is fact. Facts that people follow. Facts that people adhere to as there only source of doctrine. Facts that influence everything they do and think. Interpretation is irrelevant. In fact, the supplementation of interpretation would only aid my argument with the amount of fundamentalist that propose FAR more extreme understandings of what is stated in the Qur'an.

Hence that is why we are only discussing facts. Not opinions.

[motiv-8]

Hello all,

My response has been completed and posted in the debate thread. I hope that the length of the response will not dissuade any of you from reading, considering, and responding.

[Vince Noir]

Yeah motiv, long response.

Let's get this under way then! Don't worry about lateness in replying, its essay season for me and I too have a lot of work at the moment.

I'll have a read now.